1986-03-20

Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-fifth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege of presenting to the House petitions signed by many residents of Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax, all protesting the recent change in unemployment insurance whereby pension income is now being considered as earned income in the calculation of unemployment insurance benefits. They call upon Parliament to withdraw that particular iniquitous provision.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in the House a petition I received from my constituents in Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, with a total of 1,762 signatures. Petitioners ask the Government not to consider pension benefits or severance pay received upon retirement as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling in the House a petition asking the Government to reconsider its decision to terminate Katimavik, and the petition is signed by people from Quebec City. And I have another petition from the province of Quebec.

1 have a third petition from the Cornwall area and from my constituency. It asks the Government to reconsider its decision to abolish the Katimavik program and gives its support to Senator Hebert and his effort to try to reinstate Katimavik.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility to place before the House a petition in which the petitioners protest the removal of unemployment insurance from members of the Armed Forces who are retiring. It also mentions a serious concern about the Government forcing retired members of the Armed Forces to pay unemployment insurance premiums when they are never able to collect them. Further, it points out that when members of the Armed Forces retire, they are forced to leave the Armed Forces; it is not a voluntary withdrawal.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, a number of citizens in Metropolitan Toronto have signed a petition on the question of family reunification and on the necessity to retain the principle of the basic value of family reunification and have it reflected in Canadian laws. The petition is signed by a number of people in west Toronto, in my riding and in various other parts of Metropolitan Toronto, all asserting that basic principle.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in addition, I should like to present a petition which is signed by a number of people in Ottawa. They urge the Government to reinstate the Katimavik program for young people and would like to see it made available for future generations of Canadians.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first one concerns gas prices and it is signed by a few hundred people in my constituency. They call upon the Government to reduce gas prices by one cent for every $1 drop in world oil prices.

March 20, 1986
Order Paper Questions FULL INDEXATION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my second petition concerns family allowances. These petitioners from my riding call upon the Government to reinstate the full indexation of universal family allowances.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 1,192 Canadians who are resident in my constituency and in surrounding communities. They wish the federal and provincial Governments would have a meeting to come to an agreement to reduce the federal tax on gasoline to a fixed amount and to determine methods by which the provinces could reduce their taxes on gasoline.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 483 will be answered today.


Mr. McKinnon: In 1985 to date, how many kilograms of cheese were imported under quota?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: As of October 30, 1985, 16,740,000 kilograms of cheese were imported under quota.


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John R. Rodriguez: That this House recognizes the unnecessary hardship inflicted on older Canadian workers by the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which cause pension benefits to be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, and since votes on opposition motions are no longer considered a question of confidence in the Government, therefore urges the Government to repeal those changes immediately.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have considered this to be an extremely important motion and I have waited until the appropriate moment to enter such a motion, waited because this House changed the rules. We are going to have an opportunity to vote under a new rule which says that these kinds of votes are not considered confidence in the Government. Members on all sides of the House, and I appeal particularly to the Government side, are perfectly free to vote their conscience on this question without any fear of bringing down the Government. The vote will not result in an election. I appeal to Government Members to listen to the debate and to be persuaded by the pointed arguments that we are going to present here today.
More important, Mr. Speaker, I know that within the Government caucus there has been a considerable amount of unrest about this whole question of the changes regarding pension income and unemployment insurance. 1 know as well from reading the press that Members on all sides of the House are being petitioned by their constituents to remove this inequitable change to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
When did this change come into effect? When was it announced? I think it is important to go back and trace its history. This change was announced on November 8, 1984 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), along with another change regarding severance pay and holiday pay, and it was done without any consultation. There was no consulting with Opposition Members; there was no consulting the people of Canada and there was no consulting the trade union movement. It was a unilateral decision taken by the Minister of Finance and it was supposed to come into effect on December 31, 1984.
Because of a considerable amount of pressure, not only from Members on this side of the House but from within the Conservative caucus, and a considerable amount of representation from Canadians, from the Armed Forces, for example, the Government announced that the pension change would take effect on January 1, 1986.
The Government said in its November 8 statement that it hoped to save about $30 million with this change. That was the purpose for the change, that the Government would save $30
March 20, 1986

million in the Unemployment Insurance Program. There was no consultation, Mr. Speaker.
In the spring of 1985 the Government decided it ought to take a look at the unemployment insurance program. The Forget Commission was set up. Mr. Claude Forget was made the chairman of a commission to study the unemployment insurance program. The Commission was supposed to report in the spring of 1986, but it will not do that until the fall of 1986 because of the considerable amount of response it has received.
The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council tabled its annual report in August, 1985. There amidst its recommendations is this one:
That the Government not proceed with the announced changes in the Unemployment Insurance Regulations scheduled to take place January 1, 1986, regarding the identification of pension as income for the period immediately following lay-off, until the Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance has reviewed the issue and made recommendations.
The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council has advised the Government it ought not to go ahead with the change until the Forget Commission has reported.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I personally have entered in this House petitions from across the country containing over 19,000 signatures. Other Members of this House have also entered petitions calling upon the Government not to proceed with this provision. One of the members of the Forget Commission itself, Mr. Roy Bennett, a former executive with Ford Motor Company, has spoken out. On February 14, 1986 The Winnipeg Free Press reported:
"In hindsight, I think it would have been better had the Government not made those changes", Roy Bennett a former president of Ford Motors said in an interview.
"While we understand the motivation behind them, the're not well founded. To the extent the changes were made, they should have been different from the ones that were implemented."
From the Forget Commission itself in February we have members of the Commission saying that the changes ought not to have been made, and if they were made they ought not to have been made in the form that they were.
From the government benches we have the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) who raised a question in the House asking the Government to withdraw the changes until the Forget Commission had reported. I quote from the article:
Outside the Commons, Nowlan told reporters that most Conservative MPs had complained about the new rules and said he was disappointed by MacDonald's answer.
"I just can't understand her opinion," Nowlan said. "Flora's either blinded because she's so busy with work or she has been completely captivated by her officials on this issue. It's not the Flora MacDonald who used to show compassion and concern for the underdog."
Hear, hear, Mr. Speaker. The Member was absolutely correct about that. We have letters from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen). The Defence Minister wrote to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on June 26, 1985. In the letter he said:
Supply
After considering the options available, I have now concluded that the only reasonable and fair approach is to seek an exemption for the Canadian Forces from those provisions beginning 1 January, 1986 that will require pension income to be treated as earnings for purposes of determining Unemployment Insurance Benefits.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote this to the Minister of Employment:
As you are aware, because of the unique requirements of military service, members of the Canadian Forces are required to retire at a much earlier age than people in other walks of life. Generally, military personnel qualify for an annuity after reaching twenty years of service. They may retire voluntarily at this point, or continue serving until compulsory retirement, which may occur as early as age forty or as late as age fifty-five.
Still young individuals, Mr. Speaker.
In addition to that, we have had hundreds of letters from across the country written to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) with copies sent to myself and other Members of this House in which people call upon the Minister to withdraw the particular provision.
I have one from a gentleman in Winnipeg, Mr. Elmar A. Duell. He wrote:
I have attentively listened to the Budget, in the vain hope to hear the announcement which would rescind your barbaric changes, as implemented on January 5 with respect to the "pensions" being accounted as earned income for UIC purposes.
The P.C. Women's Association in Oromocto-Burton-Geary passed a resolution calling upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to withdraw the inequitable provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act. They gave the resolution to their Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie) who was supposed to have delivered it to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. After all of the clear indication from the opposition and government sides of the House, from people across the country, including Conservative associations, and from Ministers of the Crown, the Government's response has been a consistent "no", that the changes would proceed. Indeed, the changes have been implemented.
The Minister's rationale is that notice was given over a year ago. What difference does it make whether notice was given over a year ago? The effects are still there and people are living with their effects. We know that the regulation was not drawn up until December of 1985. On December 13, 1985, the Minister wrote to me in response to suggestions 1 had made about the regulations. She said:
At this stage, I can only inform you that no final decisions have been made by the Government concerning the specific applications of the regulations. However, 1 wish to thank you for your suggestion on this matter.
The date of that letter is December 13, 1985, and the change came into effect on January 5, 1986. At that point the regulation had not been drawn up and the Minister could easily have gotten off the galloping horse by simply withdrawing the regulation.
Canadians, including members of the New Democratic Party, are opposed to the change because it is unfair in its application. Not all pensions are treated in the same way. Only

March 20, 1986
Supply
pensions earned as a result of work are affected. Pensions from RRSPs or annuities are not counted. Pensions from the American, British, or French army are not counted. Only pensions from the Canadian Armed Forces are counted, so the rule is unfair in its application.
Another point of unfairness is that people who are disentitled from receiving UI benefits still have to pay the premiums. If a person has taken early retirement and then gets another job, he will have to pay premiums but will never be able to collect unemployment insurance. In what sort of insurance program does one pay premiums but has no hope of collecting at all? A person who has taken an early retirement, is receiving a pension, takes another job, and then becomes sick, cannot get any sick benefits at all through the unemployment insurance program. That is highly unfair.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of opportunities to run around the ends of the change. For example, if you work for a large enough organization which is prepared to play ball with you, you can postpone receiving your pension for a year while you collect unemployment insurance benefits for 49 weeks. Of course, in the following year you can get an increase in your pension to make up for the year you postponed it. That does not seem fair to me at all. What we are really doing is means testing the unemployment insurance program because it is the pension which you receive which determines whether or not you get unemployment insurance.
Another reason we opposed this change is that it is contradictory. In the Sudbury Basin the price of minerals has not been very good. The major employees in a single-industry community, Inco and Falconbridge, told the workers that they wanted to protect the jobs of younger workers by offering an early retirement prorgram. The employees were told that if they took the early retirement program they would be eligible for unemployment insurance providing they were looking for, and available to work. By taking early retirement they would protect the jobs of younger workers.
Many older workers felt that was their opportunity to do something else which they had always wanted to do, so they took early retirement in the hopes of protecting the jobs of younger workers. We were pretty happy in our community that approximately 1,200 older workers took early retirement, because it protected the jobs of younger workers who were starting out in life and had all the high expenses of maintaining a young family. After these workers accepted early retirement there was an arbitrary and unilateral move to make them ineligible for unemployment insurance. Why does the Government on the one hand encourage older workers to consider early retirement to protect the jobs of younger workers, while on the other hand pulling the rug out from under them? That is extremely contradictory.
We also oppose this, Mr. Speaker, because we believe it to be illegal. The Supreme Court of Canada decided the Dalliali-an case with respect to a person who had been collecting unemployment insurance at age 64 and then turned 65. The Act said that when one reaches the age of 65 one does not pay premiums, but cannot collect benefits. The person had started
the claim before turning 65, and the moment he turned 65 the Unemployment Insurance Commission cut him off. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a law cannot be made which retroactively takes benefits away from individuals.
Yet, in this particular case, all persons who were getting a pension and collecting unemployment insurance were cut off on January 5, 1986. I would extend the argument to say that anyone who was contributing to the unemployment insurance program at the time of the January 5 change ought to qualify for full benefits under the program. We argue against this because we believe it to be illegal.
We believe that the Government should immediately withdraw this provision. We believe that the purpose of the Forget Commission was to study the unemployment insurance program in totality and to make recommendations to Parliament with respect to how the program should apply. Changes are being made to the Act. The Minister says that this has been referred to the Forget Commission. In the meantime, thousands and thousands of claimants in the country are being denied unemployment insurance.
The Minister says that the Government can take a position when the Forget Commission reports in the fall. It could be months after the Forget Commission reports before Parliament passes a law. What will we then do about the people who did not get their benefits? They may not qualify. According to the Act you must have 20 insurable weeks in the preceding 52 weeks. By the time Parliament passes a law they may not qualify at all and will have been denied their benefits. It is extremely unfair to put people in that position.
At the National Economic Conference held here at the government Conference Centre before the Budget was introduced in May, 1985, 75 per cent of the participants, which represented predominantly the business sector and the trade union movement, signed a petition saying that the Government ought not to go ahead with these particular provisions. By not responding to what people are saying through their letters and petitions, the Government is harming people who have embarked in good faith on their unemployment insurance application and have been receiving benefits.
The only fair thing for the Government to do at this time is to withdraw this provision. I appeal to the conscience of Members on the Government side. You can vote freely knowing that it will not bring your Government down and cause an election. Under the new rules you can actually stand up and vote the way you have always said we in this House should vote, on the principal of an issue. Recognize the unfairness, the contradictory nature, and the possible illegality of this regulation. Let us put aside our partisan politics for the sake of the people who have in all honesty and good faith taken early retirement, or were forced to take early retirement as in the case of the Armed Forces. I say to Members on the Government side, put aside the partisanship for just 20 minutes this afternoon and vote for people who have been so brutally
March 20, 1986

treated by this change which came into effect on January 1, 1986.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, 1 was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member relating to suddenly, at this stage, going back to where we were prior to January 1 and yanking the matter out of the purview, if you will, of the Forget Commission. As the Hon. Member indicated, there have been many comments from all sides, his party, the Official Opposition, and certainly by Government Members, who are most concerned about this issue and most sympathetic with the plight of the pensioners concerned. Suggestions on how to deal with the problem have come from the Government benches. I wonder what is the best way of dealing with the problem now that the regulations have been put in place and the matter referred to the Forget Commission in order to find an over-all solution, not only to this issue but all issues relating to unemployment insurance benefits.
I am sure the Hon. Member is supportive of the concept of the Forget Commission. I am sure he and his party are supportive of the approach of taking an over-all review of the problems concerning unemployment insurance. Three are many problems. Something has to be done to come up with a comprehensive position on this issue. The Hon. Member is a Member of a party which has long advocated global planning. The NDP is renowned for having advocated a planned economy in which all of the pieces are not examined individually or piecemeal but in a global context. The NDP has always advocated that unemployment not be looked at on its own but in the light of interests rates, exchange rates, monetary policy, the deficit and tax policy. The same is true of the NDP's point of view on the question of public ownership of various parts of the economy, whether it be the banks or the energy industry.
1 would like to know if the Hon. Member feels that we should be looking at this in a global sense. Should the Forget Commission make some global recommendations to straighten out the problems? It might have been nice to have this beforehand, but since we do not, is it not now more logical to leave it to the Forget Commission to come up with some global recommendations, the kind the NDP usually likes, rather than piecemeal recommendations?


John R. Rodriguez: I think the Hon. Member is absolutely right. He has described the NDP's overview exactly correctly. I wrote to the Minister to tell her that she had not drawn up the regulations until late December, 1985, the change came into effect in 1986, yet the Forget Commission was set up in the spring of 1985. So we said that she should stop making changes before we look at the over-all issue. You cannot go chopping away piecemeal, taking $30 million here and $100 million there. Let the Forget Commission look at the whole program and make recommendations. Then we can make changes with some intelligence and some understanding of how these things hang together. When you start chopping away piecemeal you drastically affect people's lives. You have not
Supply
really prepared the ground for acceptance of the changes you want. That is why I appeal to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) to support us and vote with us on this motion today.
The Hon. Member raised another very important question. It is not improper for us to now tell the Minister to withdraw the regulation. It is affecting people, denying them unemployment insurance. It is an unjust change. Let us withdraw it, wait until the Forget Commission brings down its recommendations, and maybe it will have a better approach. If so we would not be adverse to a better approach to unemployment insurance. We would support it. We would have no objection.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, the most unusual feature of this particular change concerns a person who may have retired early from the Armed Forces, for example. He or she is in receipt of an Armed Forces pension and they now hold down a job. They would be ineligible under these changes to receive sick benefits under UIC during the time they continue to be employed. Would the Hon. member care to comment on the injustice of denying a person who is sick the benefit that they otherwise would be entitled to under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I did touch on that briefly. It was one of the unfair aspects of that particular provision. That is one of the reasons we oppose it. If a person retires early and goes out and gets another job, pays his premiums to the UIC and then gets laid off or becomes sick, he would not be able to collect the sick benefits he would be entitled to. He has paid the premiums, it is an insurance program, yet he would never be able to collect. We think that is the ultimate in unfairness. That is why we presented this motion today in the hope that Members on the Government side will see it the same way we see it.


Mr. Weiner:: I was intrigued by the Hon. Member's overview of what the insurance scheme actually is. We all remember when it was first implemented and 97 per cent of the gainfully employed contributed, that it was intended as a calamity insurance for those people who found themselves in the unfortunate situation of having no income. In retrospect the Hon. Member would agree there must have been instances in the past where individuals reaching toward early retirement, 62, 63, would find the opportunity to be able to take a sizeable package of money and then still draw on a plan to which the entire community is contributing but which should be used only for that calamity.
The insurance scheme, in my mind, was not intended as a guaranteed value life insurance, or a mutual fund. It is a form of term insurance to which we are all committing ourselves. 1 would ask him to reflect on some of the difficulties seen by those of us who are very concerned about bringing social assistance to those who really need it. I would certainly be the first one to join him in that kind of an opinion.

March 20, 1986
Supply
The Hon. Member referred to Mr. Roy Bennett and what he may or may not have said. I would just like to assure Mr. Speaker that Mr. Bennett has been in touch with the Deputy Minister and the Minister, and what Mr. Bennett says is that he would not make any specific recommendations or suggestions until the complete report of the commission of inquiry is submitted. Without trying to get into a debate on what may or may not have taken place, we know that Mr. Bennett, as a member of that commission, will be supporting and waiting for the final report to be submitted.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on the last point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, I simply read his quote from a Canadian Press article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on February 14, 1986. I have been the UI critic for my Party from the time 1 was elected in 1972, so I am fairly well acquainted with the thrust and the over-all philosophy of the program. That is exactly why we said that they ought not to have made this change. It is out of place and it is out of context, and that is why it should have been looked at by the Forget Commission in totality. We do not insure individuals in the program, we insure their income. That is what we insure in the unemployment insurance program.
In the pre-1971 act, I may remind the Hon. Member, we used to pay one full year of unemployment insurance benefits on retirement. A person would collect a whole year of unemployment insurance benefits when he retired from his work. 1 say that to inform the hon. gentleman of one of the principles that used to be in the pre-1971 act.
What we were really dcing here was insuring the income of the individual, and in fact we protected the jobs of younger workers when older workers took an early retirement program. It is the choice of having them stay on the job and the younger worker going on unemployment insurance, or we encourage the older worker to take the early retirement and be eligible for unemployment benefits, which means he has to look for work, be capable and available for work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired. Debate?
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for putting down this motion dealing with the cut-backs in unemployment insurance for those on early retirement pensions. We have had an opportunity to raise this matter in the House before by way of questions to Ministers, by statements pursuant to Standing Order 21 and by petitions, but this is the first time we have had a chance to debate the issue at any great length and to vote on the issue.
It is rather shocking to consider that this important change in unemployment insurance was implemented without any debate initiated by the Government and without any vote. This is a very important change in unemployment insurance affecting thousands of Canadians without any debate sponsored by the Government or any chance for the House to vote on it.
What is also important about this resolution today is that it is the first time that we will be voting on an Opposition motion which does not express non-confidence in the Government. That is extremely significant because it gives all Members in the House, in the Opposition and on the Government benches, an opportunity to really represent their constituents. Their constituents will be watching them and will know the vote this evening will be one that cannot topple the Government, that does not express non-confidence in the Government. As a matter of fact the House urges the Government to withdraw the policy. That is what we will be voting on. We will be testing the sincerity of the Government with respect to these new rules. When the Government implemented the new rules it said this would bring in a new dawning, a new spirit in the House of Commons whereby Members will be able to express their views more readily and with greater freedom.
These changes in the unemployment insurance are cruel, insensitive, retroactive, inequitable and unfair. Unfortunately, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary, who just asked a question, has read the Act closely. He just said that unemployment insurance was meant to help those people with no income. That is not what unemployment insurance is, and there is nowhere in the Act that it says that. Unemployment insurance is insurance for those who are unemployed. For example, if a person is retired early and collects rent, collects dividends, collects interest, has a partnership in a business and collects profits, they do not cut back their unemployment insurance. You could have somebody unemployed who does not have an early retirement pension but he owns a series of flats and he collects rent and he collects his unemployment insurance. But the poor fellow in the Armed Forces who is getting a pension, he has his unemployment cut back. So it is not, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, insurance against loss of income, but rather insurance against loss of employment. I would like to get that straight.
He also asked why people 62 and 63 should get unemployment insurance when they are getting a pension? I must point out to him that there are people being affected by this measure who are in their forties and fifties. In the Armed Forces you can be retired at 45 and have to go on pension. I have a file full of letters from people in their fifties on early retirement who were collecting unemployment insurance and were cut back. Many still have children in university. Many people were going to use these early retirement pensions to roll them over, at least part of them, into RSPs for the day when they really retired, because they had to go back to work or they hopefully were going to go get another job.
This change is retroactive, it is cruel, it is insensitive and it is inequitable. There are many people who have paid into the unemployment insurance system for 30, 35 years and never collected. Suddenly they are forced out on an early retirement and they are finding when they went to collect now they cannot do so. That is not fair. Unemployment insurance is not a welfare program and was never meant to be a welfare program. It is an insurance program, and I just made some arguments in that respect. We never cut back unemployment
March 20, 1986

insurance for people collecting rent, interest, dividends or profits, and the Government has not done that yet. If they were being consistent they would do that, but I think the policy is wrong in the first place.
I also want to point out that a good percentage of these people who are being cut back are on early retirement pensions but are still looking for work. They have to look for work because some of them have children. These are people my age and the age of the Parliamentary Secretary. They have children going to school, and have family responsibilities.
Every time we put a question to the Minister about this policy her justification for it is that it was announced a year in advance. Even advance notice of one year does not make a bad policy good, or justify the program. That argument is unacceptable. Furthermore, these changes are illogical. The Government makes significant changes to unemployment insurance then sets up the Forget Commission to study the unemployment insurance system with a view to making recommendations for change. However, this is done after the Government has already made very significant changes. How, in the name of reason, can that be justified? What is the purpose of establishing the Forget Commission to study the system when the Government has already made unfair cut-backs in unemployment insurance to thousands of Canadians?
I would like the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to respond to that. Incidentally, I suggest it is an indication of the importance the Government places on this matter when the Minister who is responsible is not even here to respond in this debate. The Parliamentary Secretary is here-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been here for a long time and knows that he should not mention who is and who is not in the House. I hope he will keep to debate.
Actually, I am interrupting him to give him an opportunity to rest his voice.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind gesture. I apologize. I was simply following the precedents set in the past by many Members in the House, but I accept your good
advice.
If the Forget Commission recommends that the Government's change be reversed, will it suddenly retroactively pay all those who have been cut back since January 1 of this year? I hope that the Minister of the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that it would.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), upon assuming her responsibilities, appointed a special commission on older workers. The commission reported in August, 1985 with its report entitled "Older Workers: An Imminent Crisis in the Labour Market". This commission which was set up by the Minister herself states in Recommendation No. 2 that the Government not proceed with the announced changes in the unemployment insurance regula-
Supply
tions scheduled to take place January 1, 1986, regarding the identification of pension as income for the period immediately following lay-off, until the Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance-that is the Forget Commission-has reviewed the issue and made recommendations.
That is very clear but the Minister completely ignored the recommendations made by the very people whom she appointed.
The policy to cut back unemployment insurance for people on early retirement pensions not only hurts the older workers who are being cut but younger workers who would have been given jobs by those taking early retirement. Many of these older workers between 45 and 64 who took early retirement pension did so in good faith in order to make lower positions available for younger workers.
While the unemployment rate for young people has dropped by 2 per cent since September, 1984, it is still unacceptably high at 16 per cent and, as a result of this policy, older workers are refusing to take early retirement and open up those lower positions. They might have taken early retirement prior to this change in unemployment insurance but will now wait until they are 65 before retiring. It is not a very wise policy on the part of the Government.
This change is particularly cruel to Armed Forces personnel and those in other occupations from which they must retire earlier than other Canadians. For example, Armed Forces personnel in certain ranks retire as early as age 45 and look for other employment. Some of them use part of that early retirement pension to relocate. Others use it to set up small businesses, while others would invest in an RRSP to be used when they retire at 65 or later. This is no longer possible.
This policy is unfair and insensitive because those who are losing their unemployment insurance or being cut back must continue to pay their premiums but do not receive unemployment insurance when they are unemployed. Once they find another job they must resume paying premiums but will not receive unemployment insurance if they are laid off because they have an armed services pension. It is only logical for the Government to either withdraw this policy or stop making them continually pay premiums when they can never collect. However, the Government is making these people pay premiums even though they may never collect unemployment insurance.
Protests from all over the country have been made against this policy. In Victoria, a group called the "U1C Repeal Group, 1986" has taken measures to sue the Government in order to declare this new measure illegal. The Legislature of Nova Scotia, which is dominated by Conservatives, voted unanimously to condemn this policy.
I have a clipping from The Daily Star in Halifax dated March 6 which states:
The Nova Scotia Legislature yesterday unanimously condemned Ottawa's new policy of requiring unemployment insurance recipients to count pension benefits as income.

March 20, 1986
Supply
Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia stated that the unemployment insurance changes are wrong. The New Brunswick Minister of Labour, Joe Mombourquette, also expressed his opposition to these changes.
Furthermore, some members of the Government Party publicly expressed their dissatisfaction and opposition to this measure and we will see how they vote today. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) wrote letters to the Minister of Employment and Immigration asking her to withdraw the policy with respect to the Armed Forces. As my colleague pointed out, 75 per cent of the people attending the economic summit in 1985 signed a petition asking the Government to withdraw these provisions.
Many people who learned that this policy would be taking effect at the beginning of the year called U.l. offices to get more information. They discovered that many of the officials in the unemployment insurance offices were ill-informed about the policy. For example, a very well known hot-line show in Vancouver called three U.l. offices in the Vancouver area to ask this same question about the changes and received three different answers from those offices. A person who came to see me in Montreal twice visited unemployment insurance offices there in an attempt to get information about these changes and was given a different answer on each occasion.
I have a letter which was sent to one of my constituents by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is a large national company. It is dated December 11, 1985, just before the coming into force of these measures. This is a memo sent by CPR to its employees:
Furthermore for your added information your CPR Company pension effective February 1, 1986, has been estimated-
And it gives the amount per month.
-and upon your application for the Quebec Government Pension it is estimated that you would receive approximately $344 per month plus application for U1C Benefits presently available and estimated at $276 per week.
The CPR was not even familiar with the changes. It was telling its employees that if they take an early retirement pension they will receive $276 per week unemployment insurance benefits, which is not the case. The people who took up this offer found that they were cut off UIC and did not receive any benefits.
I want to repeat that the policy of the Government in cutting back on unemployment insurance benefits for those taking early retirement pensions is unfair, unequitable and retroacive. It is put into force at a time when the Forget Commission is studying the unemployment insurance system. I would hope that when we come to vote on this measure this evening we will see Hon. Members of this House united in supporting the motion which simply says that we urge the Government to withdraw this policy. We will test the sincerity of Hon. Members and we will see how well they represent their constituents.


Mr. James:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seemed to have some disagreement with the interpretation of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said he views this as a situation of nonincome. He went on by saying that his interpretation was that unemployment insurance was to be used for a financial bridging between jobs. Later on he talked about vision and what unemployment insurance is for. I guess I really have some problem in my mind in understanding where the Hon. Member is coming from. He is saying that people who, of their own volition, have taken retirement, as they do in the private sector and as they do so frequently in the military, should receive unemployment insurance. Yet he also said very emphatically that unemployment insurance was devised and developed as a financial bridge between jobs. I really do not know how the Hon. Member reconciles that when he is so emphatic as to what unemployment insurance is for. I would be interested if he would expound on that a little.
Before he does so, I would like to tell him a little story. About two or three days after I was elected, five older gentlemen, retirees, presented themselves at the door of my constituency office. They told me they had retired from Imperial Oil and, unbeknownst to them at the time, were entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits for extended periods of time up to one year. They said what a deplorable and insane situation that was and that it should not be, that there is no way they should be collecting unemployment insurance. However, in sitting around at the golf club they were kind of pressured into doing so by their peers who had already taken it.
How do we reconcile that kind of abuse to a system which was set up with a lot of intelligence to allow bridging, and how do we ensure that workers and companies are not incumbered by that kind of thing happening in the future?


William Warren Allmand: pensions into an RSP fund so that they will have a worthwhile pension, because they still have 15 or 16 years to go. Even if there are abuses to the unemployment insurance system-and I would agree with the Hon. Member that there are some- that can be dealt with by the Forget Commission. The Minister has appointed the Forget Commission which is studying all of these abuses and it will make recommendations. However, we should not go ahead and make ad hoc changes before the Forget Commission reports.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member see anything of an obstructive nature if, for example, we pass this motion which simply urges the Minister of Employment and Immigration to consider withdrawing the provision? Let us say we pass the motion today and she did consider and withdraw it. Does the Hon. Member see anything obstructive in now having to go back and pay all of the people who may have been disentitled as a result of the change? Does the Hon. Member see that as some great bureaucratic obstruction, or can it be done in fairness and expeditiously?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think it can be done without any obstruction or even inference of obstruction. The Hon. Member will recall that the Government, as a result of its Budget last year, was going to deindex old age pensions. After Canadians spoke out on the issue it came to its senses, realized it was a bad provision, and withdrew it. This is what we are asking. If those people in Victoria are successful in the courts and the courts say that this provision to cut people's unemployment insurance after they have paid premiums for years and years is illegal the Government will have to change it anyway. Why not do it as a result of the representations of millions of Canadians instead of being forced to do it by the courts?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member in his remarks referred to the fact that there had not been an opportunity to either debate or vote on this particular issue. I think the Hon. Member will recall that this measure was first introduced in the Economic Statement of November 8, 1984, I believe. That was immediately after the Speech from the Throne on November 4. There was, of course, a lengthy period for debate on the Speech from the Throne so there was a considerable period of time in which this issue could have been debated. I suspect that if the Hon. Member goes back and looks at the Debates which took place at that time he will find that there were remarks addressed to this issue.


Ms. Copps:: And you didn't listen.


Alan Redway: That is exactly right. The Hon. Member apparently was not listening. It is significant that shortly after, in December of 1984, the Minister actually extended the date on which this provision would take effect to January 1, 1986. That probably had something to do with the remarks which were made in the debate on the Speech from the Throne at that time.
Supply
Another point which I draw to the Hon. Member's attention is that there have been numerous opportunities for votes on opposition day motions. To the best of my knowledge today is the first time that the Opposition has ever put forward this particular issue, notwithstanding that something in the order of 18 months have passed.
The Hon. Member mentioned the issue of unwinding this provision. As a former Minister of the Crown I would point out to him that we are not talking about revoking something which has not been put into place, such as the question of the indexation of Old Age Security. We are talking about a program which has already been put into place. Does the Hon. Member think it would be possible to unwind this situation for the three-month period in which it has been in place?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned that this issue was brought up around the time of the Speech from the Throne and that there was debate on the Speech from the Throne. He is quite correct. However, he knows that in the Speech from the Throne there were a large number of proposals put forward by the Government. He should also know that when one votes on the Speech from the Throne one votes on the general policy direction of the Government and not on any one particular policy. I recall in the last Parliament, when the Conservatives were asked to vote on omnibus Bills, when they were asked to vote for or against a great number of issues, some of which they approved and some of which they did not, they did not like that. That is why members of the Conservative Party started the bells ringing for 14 days. Because we had a chance to debate the Budget or the Speech from the Throne the Hon. Member should not say that we were really zeroing in on this issue and that we had a chance to vote on it separately from the other issues.
The reason we did not put this matter on for debate on an opposition day prior to January 1 is that the matter only came into effect on January 1. The Minister announced the proposal and we asked her if she would withdraw it. We were hoping she would use some good sense and withdraw the proposal. However, January 1 came and went and now the measure is being implemented. People are now having their benefits cut back. That is what makes this motion necessary. We have tried to use reason on the Minister in the House. We have asked her questions over and over again. We now have the debate to which we are speaking today and on which we will vote at the end of the day.
The Hon. Member asked me as a former Minister of the Crown whether I think it is realistically possible to reverse this decision now. I say it is. Obviously the Government also thinks it is because it has been saying, as has the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Government will let Forget give them some advice on the matter. If Forget says this is a bad policy and that it should be reversed then the Government will have to reverse it. The Government has almost promised to take Forget's advice, although it did not accept the advice contained in the report on older workers which recommended that

March 20, 1986
Supply
this measure not be implemented. Perhaps it will not take Forget's advice either. Perhaps these commissions and studies are just a lot of window-dressing and sham.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired. Resuming debate with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Employment and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on unemployment insurance. It is, indeed, a pleasure to represent the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) here today. The Minister has worked tirelessly for the first 18 months of our mandate to create real jobs in the country. She has dedicated herself to this cause 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We all recognize the great achievements which have been made-the 580,000 new jobs which have been created. These are real jobs, jobs which involve training and real work experience. In retrospect, when we discuss unemployment insurance, the more people we put into the workforce the less likely it will be to rely on the unemployment insurance system.
Unemployment insurance, or UI, has played an important role in the Canadian economy since its inception in the 1940s and, more specifically, in the last few years. It is a vital social safety net which benefits millions of Canadians every year. In 1985 the UI program paid more than $10 billion to over three million Canadians. This money was paid to Canadians who had lost their jobs and their incomes-Canadians who needed help.
The motion before the House questions changes we have made to the UI regulations. I am glad to see that so many Members are interested and concerned about UI. I think that the interest shown by the House highlights the urgent need to examine the UI program.
The purpose of UI is to help alleviate the effects of unemployment and to help people get back on their feet quickly. We are not sure that the present structure of the program does this. As most Hon. Members are aware, the Government has commissioned a complete review of the UI program. The Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance, chaired by Claude Forget, who, I might add, is a distinguished Canadian and who had the honour of representing in the provincial legislature the same riding which I represent federally, spent several months travelling across the country listening to the views of all Canadians.
We feel there is an urgent need to overhaul the UI program to make it responsive to the needs of Canadians and to take its place in the economic framework of the country. None of us can deny the beneficial effects of UI, especially during hard times. We must accept the responsibility of maintaining those beneficial effects, if not improving them. At the same we must not lose sight of our managerial responsibility.
In 1985 the UI program cost us over $11 billion. We must contain the costs of the program within reasonable levels to ensure that we can continue to afford it. We must ensure that
the program survives. The basic premise of unemployment insurance is that people who lose their jobs can get money while they are looking for another job. This basic premise is not always easy to define.
The Hon. Member thought that I was wrong in what I said before. It is more than likely that I was not as clear as I might have been since I know I am right. I do not want to say that the Hon. Member is wrong in light of his distinguished service to the House. However, what I did say is that to have access to UI benefits a worker has to demonstrate that he has no earnings coming from his employment and that he has worked long enough to be qualified. For sure he has to be unemployed. This is something that he will have to prove for everey week he will be claiming UI benefits. The starting point is for a worker to be without work and without pay for at least seven days. This is called an interruption of earnings. While on claim these same people must be looking for work. They must be available at all times for work. These are the basic principles of unemployment insurance.
As originally conceived, the design of unemployment insurance was based directly on the principles of a social insurance program. Emphasis was given to limiting benefits to instances of unforeseen and unavoidable risk of unemployment. Coverage was limited to workers in this category and benefits were based directly on the concept of insurable risk. This meant that there was a direct relationship between the extent of attachment to the labour market and the eligibility for and duration of entitlement to benefits.
During the period of some 30 years between 1940 and 1970 there was a decreasing emphasis on strict insurance principles and an increasing stress on other social and economic objectives. In particular, coverage was extended to workers in seasonal occupations where it could not be argued that the risk of unemployment was unforeseeable. In fact, it was quite the opposite-a recurring yearly event.
In 1970 a new program design was introduced to make the program more relevant to the changed socio-economic conditions of the 1970s. This was embodied in the 1971 legislation. In part, this involved the establishment of a new relationship between insurance and non-insurance principles. For example, initial benefits were related to labour force attachment and extended benefits related to local unemployment conditions.
As it turned out a combination of the designed features of the 1971 Act and the changing conditions in the economy and labour market, particularly high unemployment, gave greater weight to the income transfer aspects of the scheme. These circumstances led to a significant extension of the program and its costs, as well as an increased proportion of total cost allocated to the government account.
In 1971 the Liberal Government reduced the eligibility requirement to just eight weeks of work during the previous year and lengthened the maximum duration of entitlement to 44 weeks. As a direct result UI expenditures leaped from $700 million in 1970 to almost $2 billion in 1972. Currently, unemployment insurance is the most expensive operating pro-
March 20, 1986

gram of the federal Government, costing us $11.6 billion last year. To give a comparison, we spent $8.9 billion on defence.
Following 1971, a series of legislative amendments was introduced over several years to contain the expansion of the program, to redress the balance between insurance principles and income transfer considerations, and to ensure a more positive effect on the labour market. Despite these amendments, fundamental concerns remain about the objectives and design of the program in the context of dramatically changing conditions in society, the economy and the labour market. Since 1971 these many changes, both legislative and regulatory, have resulted in a progressively more complex program of patchwork. All the changes were attempts to make the UI program adhere more strictly to its basic principles, but many have had the effect of making the program more and more complex.
When the Government took office in 1984 it inherited the UI program and the responsibility to administer it. On November 8, 1984, the Government announced its intention to make changes to UI, and these changes were in response to its managerial responsibility. It was important that some action be taken quickly to help give order to the patchwork.
The changes were announced in the economic statement of November, and a press release was sent out in December, 1984, to a list of over 7,000. All media outlets were covered. The press release covered the announced changes and the implementation date. In March, 1985, a letter was sent out to 650,000 employers, all employers participating in UI, notifying them of the pension regulation change. It would seem to me that this was more than adequate notice.
UI is an insurance program based upon earnings and attachment to the labour force. All the Government has done is redefine the question of earnings to reflect the reality of the situation and has stuck to the principles of UI. There are those who seem to believe that unemployment insurance should operate like a savings plan or a prepaid pension scheme. However, UI is neither of these; UI is not a retirement fund and it is not automatic. All UI claimants must prove that they are eligible and must continue to prove that eligibility each week they are on claim.
As we can see in the motion before the House, even these basic principles of UI are open for discussion. Every Canadian has an opinion on UI. Many of these opinions are often in conflict. We have heard members of the business community tell us that UI is a disincentive to work and that the benefits are too high. They want UI to be more difficult to obtain and to be paid for less time. On the other hand, others have told us that UI did not pay enough and should be paid longer. Who is right? Seemingly there is no natural consensus.
This is why, on July 6, 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a commission of inquiry on unemployment insurance. The Forget Commission was charged with a comprehensive examination of the UI program. I should like to
Supply
read from the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry, its main responsibilities:
The Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance will analyse the role of the unemployment insurance program as a means of improving the operations of labour markets in Canada, to more effectively support Canada's economic development as an equitable financing partnership of business, labour and government, and to provide new and better opportunities for Canadians experiencing temporary unemployment.
It is an all-encompassing review of the UI program. In addition, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has specifically requested that the Forget Commission look at the question of earnings. For this reason, we look forward to receiving the recommendations of the Forget Commission to continue the evolution of unemployment insurance in Canada.
As many of my colleagues are aware, the best solution for UI is to find jobs for people. We have accepted the responsibility of putting the country back to work. When our Government came into office in September, 1984, it became immediately apparent that dramatic changes were needed to the existing complement of federal job-creation and training programs. The programs in existence at that time were inadequate. We soon discovered that most of the job-creation programs were short-term and make-work in nature and did nothing to address the need for meaningful, enduring employment, not only for older workers but indeed for workers from all age groups, while much of the training being provided was irrelevant to the real needs of the Canadian labour market.
Facing record unemployment levels and rapidly escalating demands for skilled and reskilled workers, the Government was not prepared to stand still and watch more and more Canadians suffer from the humiliation of unemployment and underemployment. Accordingly, at the first opportunity during the First Ministers' Conference in Regina in February last year, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration jointly presented the outline for a bold new initiative which would represent a whole new approach to training and the provision of needed employment for Canadians, termed the Canadian Jobs Strategy. This exciting new approach represents a complete redesign of Government labour market programs and a fundamental change in the way in which we develop and invest in Canada's workforce. It is a change which gives ordinary Canadians suffering from lack of work or from lack of skills the opportunity to get relevant training and relevant experience for the lasting, meaningful employment they must have.
As a Government, we value the opinion of all Canadians. My colleagues have already made reference to the Forget Commission and to the intensive discussions and dialogue with Canadians as part of the thorough review of the UI program. Similarly, in developing the Canadian Jobs Strategy, we consulted with hundreds upon hundreds of individuals and groups across the country. We valued the opinion of the unemployed young person in Cape Breton. We valued the opinion of the older miner who was laid off because of a mine closure in northern Ontario. We valued the opinion of the older woman in Saskatchewan who wanted to re-enter the labour market after many years as a home-maker.

March 20, 1986
Supply
The Canadian Jobs Strategy ensures that federal resources are used effectively to bring direct assistance to those most in need. Many Canadians face severe disadvantages in the labour market or are more severely affected by changing technology and economic conditions. These include the growing number of women re-entering the labour market, the long-term unemployed, workers needing skills training to avoid lay-offs or job displacement, and workers in communities suffering economic decline who need new opportunities for long-term employment. All these groups include older workers to a large extent.
Job training, job creation and economic development are linked to provide these Canadians with valuable skills, practical work experience and meaningful employment opportunities. The re-entry option under the Job Entry Program is helping many older women who have been out of the labour force for at least three years and may require career counselling and instruction in job search techniques or skills upgrading due to new technology in the workplace to re-enter the workforce.
In Kamloops, British Columbia, under the re-entry option 15 workers are receiving class-room training and practical work experience over a period of 34 weeks, to prepare them for work in the automated business office. Of these, six are over 45 years of age.
In metropolitan Vancouver, 50 workers are being trained in management skills for business including computer applications, supervision and management skills, and computer literacy for 31 weeks. Of these 50 workers, 16 are over 45 years of age.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy is also assisting many older workers under the Job Development Program. Frequently, older workers are eligible for the Job Development Program because they have been out of work for 24 weeks of the past 30 weeks. In Quebec, a non-profit agency is giving 42 forestry workers an opportunity to develop specialized skills to improve their ability to adapt to changes in their industry.
Older workers are also finding assistance under the Skill Investmnet Program. This program is the first one to help employed older workers to plan for change in advance. They can train for the future before their existing skills become obsolete. For older workers it is a chance to get the skills they need for continuing employment. For employers it is a practical way to avoid laying off adaptable, capable older employees during times of change.
This is not the only way employers and employees can benefit from skills training under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The Skill Shortages Program provides much needed financial assistance for employers who must train workers in skills in short supply and high demand.
In Newfoundland, a company seeking to stay competitive in a changing market is modernizing its plant by installing a beam line conveyor system, a system which will help the company increase its productivity and throughput of structural steel. For this piece of technology to operate effectively, it is
necessary for a number of employees to have developed skills as both fitters and welders. The Skill Shortages Program is assisting in this effort by providing training which will eventually permit eight employees to become certified welders. Two of these trainees were chosen from among the senior fitters in the company. They had 26 and 13 years of experience respectively, and despite the fact they were not the younger employees of this company they accepted the challenge with enthusiasm and dedication.
The Community Futures Program will also benefit many older workers in communities across Canada experiencing economic decline, chronic unemployment, plant closures, massive lay-offs or the disappearance of single industries.
These are some of the examples of what we have done for older workers. We have remained consistent with the basic principles of UI while introducing innovative programs to help older Canadians who are looking for work. We must continue to help individual Canadians adapt to a changing world while still providing assistance to those Canadians who need our help.
We are anxiously awaiting the recommendations of the Forget Commission so that Ul can be more effective, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is relatively simple. I listened with great interest to the Member. I know he is a person who shows considerable compassion to others in the country. If I am quoting him correctly, and I hope I am because I tried to write down what he said accurately, he said that unemployment insurance is by definition an insurance program based on earnings available to those who have attachment to the labour force. He may want to correct a word or two but I think that is what the Hon. Member meant.
I would, therefore, draw from that the following. First, to determine eligibility you would have to pay into and have an attachment to the labour force. Second, in order to be eligible for benefit you would pay the appropriate premiums out of your earnings. Third, having met those two eligibility requirements you would be able to claim benefit.
With that in mind, let me ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Weiner) whether he thinks it fair that a person who has retired from the Armed Forces and who is, therefore, in receipt of a pension, but who may be in his or her early 50s because of the arrangements that exist in that particular line of work, should be rendered ineligible to receive sick benefits under the unemployment insurance plan, notwithstanding the fact that the person is employed, notwithstanding the fact that the person paid premiums and notwithstanding the fact that the person will suffer immeasurably as a result of the Government's action which would deny the person the benefits available to all others in this society?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour and pleasure of spending the last few months listening to what ordinary Canadians have to say about the whole issue of
March 20, 1986

whether pension income should be considered as earnings in considering the UI benefits.


Ian Deans: Particularly sick benefits.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: In all of these consultations, what I have said, in fairness, is that I understood their plight and I think I will be able to represent it very fairly at the appropriate time.
At the moment we have a Commission of Inquiry. Maybe it should have had its report ready by now, so perhaps this whole discussion would have been academic, but the Commission will be reporting by the end of the summer. I am hopeful that when the whole review of the system is put into place there will be an excellent opportunity at that time for me to raise the concerns of my constituents, and the concerns of the people to whom I have listened on open line shows.
The Member is correct in saying that I am a man of great sympathy, understanding and feeling for people. I have lived and worked in the community side by side with them and I have assured them that at the right time their concerns will be raised in a fair and honourable manner.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, does the Parliamentary Secretary think the following example is fair? Worker "A" owns a triplex or a small apartment building from which he collects rent and clears about $500 a month. He is laid off. He is about 50 years old. He is still ready and available for work but he collects his full unemployment insurance despite the fact that he collects about $500 in rent. Worker "B" who worked for Northern Telecom is laid off. He is given an early retirement pension of $500 a month. His unemployment insurance is cut back because the income to him is in a pension-


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: He is laid off?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, very often he is laid off.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: And 64 years old?


William Warren Allmand: He is 50 years old.


Miss Nicholson:: Listen before you interrupt.


William Warren Allmand: He is given an early retirement pension on the lay-off. His unemployment insurance is cut back. The other fellow is laid off. Because he gets his income from rent, he is not cut off from benefit. Does the Hon. Member think that is fair?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I could easily ask whether the Hon. Member thinks this is fair. My father spent his entire life as a watch-maker. He was not allowed to contribute to the unemployment insurance scheme. He was a small businessman.


William Warren Allmand: That is not the question.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The weeks when there was no money to take home were pretty dry weeks. There are things we have to look at through the entire system. When we are so close to receiving
Supply
a complete and exhaustive report from a commission that crossed this country and met many Canadians from all walks of life, let us wait. Let us not allow this uproar to do something that may be piecemeal. We will have a wonderful opportunity to put into place something that will be fair and honourable for all Canadians.


Mr. Desrosiers:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred earlier to the Forget Commission's role and terms of reference, and I am a little concerned because I heard no word about fraud. You know there is now evidence that Canada taxpayers are being robbed of more than $3 billion a year through the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I wonder if my hon. friend could inform the House whether this is going to be mentioned in the Forget Commission's report. Are we going to be told about all the scheming that goes on at various levels to defraud the Unemployment Insurance Fund? What does the Forget Commission . . . Are they going to report on the $3 billion the Government is losing each year? I heard no reference to this in your statement, and 1 think I would like some clarification.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. The terms of reference-and 1 can assure you they are quite clear on this-that we gave ... we have given the Forget Commission of Inquiry the right to travel across the country and investigate all aspects of the program. When the report is submitted to the Minister, I am sure we will have an opportunity at that time to analyze all these aspects together and also to set up a system that will have tighter controls. I don't want to anticipate what is going to happen or the discussions that may follow, but I just want to repeat that we will soon have a chance ... the report will be something we have been waiting for for a long time-maybe ten years-and I think it will now be a matter of just a few more months.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment or two and then I will have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Weiner).
I think the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) posed a good question when he brought up the example of Worker "A" and worker "B" and the real problems with this unemployment insurance regulation which the Minister has just brought forward.
I happen to represent an area where there are not many jobs. We do not have too many signs of all those jobs that are supposed to have been created, according to government officials. The unemployment rate in my area is going the other way. Even in good times agriculture, the fisheries, and tourism are the main industries in the Province of Prince Edward Island, and those are the main areas in which jobs are created, but they are seasonal.

March 20, 1986
Supply
Canadian Forces Base Summerside was established on Prince Edward Island and there are many Armed Forces personnel there who are forced to retire. We must realize that Armed Forces personnel are forced to retire at a certain age in most categories. They have also been forced to pay into the unemployment insurance system. Premiums are deducted at source. Many of them whom I have talked to have told me that their pensions are between SI 1,000 and $12,000 a year. I have talked to members who are 50 years of age. Their families are at most critical point inasmuch as their children are in university. If that person gets a part-time seasonal job in that area he will earn approximately $6,000 which, added to the $12,000 pension, amounts to $18,000 a year. That is his total income.
In many cases the only opportunity members of the Armed Forces have to buy a permanent home is when they retire. The Armed Forces, being what it is, requires people to be posted in different parts of the country and the world. They buy their homes in the last three or four years of service, knowing that they will be forced to retire, so they still have mortgages upon retirement. They have children in university and are not able to make ends meet. They rely on unemployment insurance for part of their income. The additional money they can make at part-time jobs is not sufficient for their survival. I think this is very unfair. Does the Parliamentary Secretary believe that it is fair for the Government to insist that these people contribute to the unemployment insurance fund and not allow them to collect at any time?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for bringing forth an issue with which he and many Members on all sides of the House are concerned. We are still focusing on process rather than results. We want results. We are talking about the overhaul of an entire system. This will be accomplished very soon and there is no point in trying to justify or find ways to exclude or include certain groups. Give us an opportunity to hear what the commissioners have to say. They have had a chance to speak to Canadians and will certainly be raising this issue. At the appropriate time we will ensure that that concern is raised at the right level.


George Roland Henderson: Do I understand correctly from the Parliamentary Secretary that if the Forget Commission recommends to the Government that this measure should not have been enacted retroactively, all the people who have had their unemployment insurance premiums reduced, or are not receiving them at all, will be paid back retroactively by the Government?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Before going much further we must recognize that universal payment of premiums has been a basic principle of unemployment insurance. What I as a Member or Parliamentary Secretary would recommend, based on a recommendation of the Forget Commission, may be different than what the Minister would recommend. However, knowing her strong concern for the fair treatment of employees in all parts of the country, I know she will weigh very heavily the findings of the
Forget Commission and bring those findings to her Cabinet colleagues for consideration.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I, along with many of my colleagues in the House of Commons and elsewhere, have the greatest sympathy for early retirees who are forced from their employment and must accept a small pension insufficient to provide for their needs and, therefore, must rely upon unemployment insurance. As I understand the motion, it requires the repeal of the changes made effective initially in November of 1984, and subsequently delayed until January 1 of 1986.
If we pass this amendment and those changes are repealed, will people in higher income brackets then be eligible for unemployment insurance? I have great sympathy for a corporal who retires from the Armed Forces at age 45 and needs that unemployment insurance benefit. However, 1 say with no apology that I have no sympathy for a general who retires at an income of $60,000 or $70,000.
If Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who receives a pension in excess of $70,000 a year from the people of Canada, were to lose his job at the law firm in Montreal and apply for unemployment insurance, would he receive unemployment insurance from the system because of the repeal of these provisions? I do not mind paying unemployment insurance to a corporal, but I do not want to provide public funds to a general. The Unemployment Insurance Commission has a deficit of over $4 billion. Is the Member asking us to help the general?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the difficulty which we are in right now. If we try to make any changes piece-meal, we will favour a whole group of people.


William Warren Allmand: That is what you are doing.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: In an editorial in the London Free Press it is stated that in recent years millions of dollars of UI benefits have gone to employees who have taken early retirement within two or three years of age 65 and then applied for unemployment assistance, although they have no intention of seeking a new job. We must reflect on a system which will look at the entire operation fairly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 hate to raise it, but in his previous intervention the speaker failed to recognize that there is only one general and thousands of corporals, most of whom vote in the Member's riding of Halifax West.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think I will reflect on the Hon. Member's point of order.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity given to us by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) through his motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I have listened carefully to the debate which has taken place this morning. 1
March 20, 1986

think it would be worthwhile to read the motion to the House again because there seems to be some confusion in the debate as to what the motion actually asks for. The motion reads:
That this House recognizes the unnecessary hardship inflicted on older Canadian workers by the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which cause pension benefits to be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, and since votes on opposition motions are no longer considered a question of confidence in the Government, therefore urges the Government to repeal those changes immediately.
I think this is a reasonable motion which is obviously well thought out. It is moved in the spirit of what is right and fair with regard to unemployment insurance premiums. It is also moved in the spirit of the new parliamentary reform of which every Member of the House is supportive. It gives Members on the Government side an opportunity to vote, based on the needs of their own constituents, without threatening the Government with defeat. It allows individual Members of Parliament to represent the interests of their own constituents.
As has already been pointed out, I and other Members have received numerous petitions from our constituents. There is a deep concern about what the Government has done to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It behooves all of us to express those concerns in a very clear way. The Government has indicated it does not feel that strongly about the measure. If the Forget Commission recommends that this measure be reversed, then the Government has indicated a willingness to do so. In fact, two Ministers of the Crown have made special pleas to the Minister to not proceed with this change in regulations. So there is a broad base of support for what this motion expresses.
Before I go on to some other remarks I feel I have to comment on two or three of the interventions that were made following the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks. I may be wrong in what I heard, but I understood one Member to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question concerning massive abuse of unemployment insurance. Apparently there are all kinds of people making fraudulent claims against unemployment insurance. Is the Government looking into that? I have had an opportunity over the years to look into this matter, and if there is an update on the data I would be pleased to hear it. It is my information that of all claims Filed for unemployment insurance less than one-half of 1 per cent are considered to be fraudulent. People apply for unemployment insurance because they need financial support while they are unemployed. They do it honestly and forthrightly. If I am correct in my understanding of what that particular Member asked, that is totally unfair based on the facts as I know and understand them to be.
If you look at the insurance industry as a whole, whether it be car insurance, home insurance, fire insurance or any other kind of insurance, if they had a fraudulent rate nearly as good as one-half of 1 per cent, it would be outstanding. The unemployment insurance fund is well-controlled and well-policed. Sometimes it is policed too harshly. When the UIC throws a wide net to try and identify fraudulent users, very
Supply
often many innocent claimants are caught up and quite unfairly denied benefits.
To get back to the motion itself, the reason the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and his colleagues in the NDP felt it was important to have this subject debated in the House was specifically because the Government did not make this change in that way. It was done by Order in Council. Members from all sides were not given an opportunity to debate what the Government did at the beginning of this year. We have not had a chance to vote on this measure. The unemployed were never asked whether they thought this was a good or bad idea. They have since expressed their opinion through petitions to Parliament; they do not like it. This is true of not only unemployed workers but also people who are working and who may face unemployment some day. They view it as a bad thing and for a very good reason.
Many of the people who are signing these petitions have worked hard all their life. Many of them have been in the workforce for 30-odd years. They paid unemployment insurance premiums in the expectation that if they ever did become unemployed they would receive some income. They had expectations and those expectations are being denied to them by what this Government is now doing. It is changing the rules in midstream and that is what strikes people as being totally unfair. It is not only inequitable, it is totally unfair.
The Government keeps telling us that it is taking a new approach, there is a process of consultation where there never was before. If that is the case, why were the unemployed not consulted? Why was Parliament not consulted? So far as we know there was absolutely no consultation, unless it was with the business community. It certainly was not with the ordinary Canadian. That is why we have this motion before us. Since that consultation did not take place we want to air the matter now in a very public way. We think there is broad general support for this motion in the country. Conservative Members who do not support the motion are going to hear very loudly and clearly from their constituents.
I recall the debate which took place on the Government's plan to deindex Old Age Security payments. The Government told us that there was broad general support from seniors for this program. After those statements were made I watched with great interest who the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was talking to. He did not talk to senior citizens. Even when senior citizens came to Parliament he did not speak to them about the impact that measure would have on them. Every time I observed the Minister he was in New York talking to U.S. businessmen, in Montreal talking to Canadian businessmen, or in Toronto talking to financiers. He never spoke to senior citizens or future senior citizens about what he was trying to do to their pension income. However, once the seniors caught on to what the Minister was about to do they consulted among themselves and voiced their concerns in a very concerted way. The Minister saw the justness of their arguments and reversed himself. That is all this motion is asking for. It asks the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to come to her senses, do the right thing by the
11702

March 20, 1986
The Late Henri Courtemanche
unemployed and reverse the decision she made on January 1 of this year.
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, you may. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) will have seven minutes left and a 10-minute question and comment period when we resume debate. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: I am aware of an understanding and I take it there is a desire to make some special statements. The rest of Question Period, including the statement period, will be commenced at the end of this special statement.

[ Translation]


THE LATE HON. HENRI COURTEMANCHE
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard the sad news of the passing away of the Hon. Henri Courtemanche, lawyer and former politician. He became a Member of this House in 1949 and Secretary of State in 1958, under the Government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.
[Stage Direction]
After his service in this Chamber Henri Courtemanche served with distinction in the other place as a Member of the Senate of Canada.
[ Translation]
Henri Courtemanche was a man who worked very hard for his country and who was known to all as intent on pursuing the goals he set for himself.
On behalf of the Government, I wish to express our sincere condolences to his immediate family and to all his friends.
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, although I did not have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Courtemanche personally, 1 certainly read in the media about his work as a Quebec Member of this House, and I wish to endorse what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on behalf of my colleagues in this Party in
recognizing the passing of Henri Courtemanche. He served both the Government and the Parliament of Canada during his time as a member of the Cabinet of the late John Diefenbaker, and also as a Deputy Speaker. In both capacities he was able to influence the course of the events of the country. I am pleased to join with the Government in mourning his passing.


Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Hon. Henri Courtemanche, a great Canadian from my riding who died last night at the age of 68.
Mr. Courtemanche was a lawyer and a member of the Quebec Bar. He was elected for the first time as a Member of the House of Commons in 1949, and re-elected in 1957. He was appointed Deputy Speaker of the House in 1957, and became a member of the Privy Council and Secretary of State in 1958. He was a member of the Senate from 1960 to 1961.
Henri Courtemanche was a man who performed his duties with integrity and dedication. As a Member, he always represented his constituents to the best of his ability. He worked very hard for the benefit of all Canadians, and he continued to serve his fellow citizens after his return to the private sector.
On behalf of my constituents in Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, I want to offer my sincere condolences to the bereaved family.


Mr. Speaker:: I suspect that the House would like to show its respect and sympathy to the family in the usual way.
[ Whereupon the House stood in silence.]


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to an issue affecting hundreds of western Canada workers, and to this telegram 1 received:
Despite various requests Mr. Wilson's Budget did not contain a measure depriving Korea of the reduced tariffs on steel afforded them under the general preferential tariff. No other major industrial country gives Korea special treatment on steel because they recognize that Korea has the most modern steel industry in the world. Because of their proximity to the West Coast, IPSCO
March 20, 1986

plants in Port Moody, B.C., Edmonton, Red Deer, Brooks and Calgary, Alberta and Regina, Saskatchewan are particularly vulnerable. IPSCO employment today is 1,400 compared to 2,200 in 1981.
We respectfully request you amend the ways and means motion on customs and tariffs to withdraw the general preferential tariff privileges from Korean steel and steel products-
It is signed by the president-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago today the arts community marched on Ottawa to protest cut-backs in spending stemming from the Government's first economic statement. As a result of that and other protests across the country, the Government learned to listen. It has even responded by the appointment of numerous task forces to investigate various aspects of the arts, such as broadcasting, film distribution, museum and arts funding.
However, concrete support for the arts community is still inadequate, and the election promises made to it of increases at least to cover increases in the cost of living have not been respected. What the Government calls an increase in the Budget fails to replace the money cut back last year. Further, there has been interference by the Minister in the management of the supposedly independent agencies.
Policies announced by the Government such as those related to the publishing industry are ignored when actual decisions must be made, most notably in the takeover of Prentice-Hall.
It is time for the arts community to come back to the Hill to restate the case that the vital contribution it makes to Canada needs and deserves our full support.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, biotechnology and genetic engineering will, without a doubt, make food production much more efficient in the years to come.
Technological advances will likely change the pattern of agriculture as much in the next 25 years as was the case in the previous 75.
A recent United States study by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment predicts that only 50 per cent of that country's farmers will still be in business by the turn of the century. Large farms, in proportion, will be able to adapt to a much greater degree than smaller ones.
If we are to stay competitive, and if our remaining farmers are to enjoy a high standard of living, then Canadian longterm agricultural policy has to encourage the adoption of the new techniques and the changes of scale they necessitate.


WHEN IT'S SPRINGTIME IN NANAIMO A PRESENT OF DAFFODILS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, today is the first official day of spring. In Nanaimo-Alberni it is sunny and 17 degrees. In Ottawa it is minus 10 degrees, with a wind chill factor reaching minus 40 degrees.
In British Columbia the grass is green and the flowers bloom. On Parliament Hill the only crocus in bloom, by the East Block, is a direct result of nearby underground heating pipes.
Not that we want to rub it in, but today all Members of Parliament have been presented with a daffodil, compliments of CKNW radio in Vancouver. In this instance CKNW stands for "Canadians know nice weather".
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been presented with a bouquet of daffodils because the first day of spring is also his birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: We, from the Canadian paradise we call British Columbia, wish the House the very best this spring- whenever it arrives in Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, with the federal Government claiming that it has created 8,000 jobs in Newfoundland in the past year, and the provincial Government claiming that it has created 7,000 jobs in Newfoundland in the past year, I did some checking this morning and discovered that the only record set in the past year is that, for the first time in Newfoundland's history, over 100,000 people are now registered as unemployment insurance claimants. That is over 100,000 people out of a total workforce of
224,000.	So Newfoundlanders are asking what is going on.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been conned, and conned

March 20, 1986
badly, or he is trying to con the Canadian people himself. I am not sure which I prefer to be true. In any event the Prime Minister has done serious damage to the future of Canada and its environment by pretending that he has gained something from President Reagan when anyone who knows anything knows he has not.
Why this persistence of style over substance, of rhetoric over reality, of pomposity over progress? The Prime Minister has seriously undermined the real friends Canadians have in Congress by appearing to be satisfied, indeed orgasmic, about nothing, thus making it difficult for those who are trying to get an actual reduction of acid rain.
Instead of undermining our friends in Congress, the Prime Minister should have had the guts to tell his phony friend in the White House that five years of uncertain funds for research are not a substitute for the action which is possible now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE COMMAND
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, the NORAD and acid rain agreements signed yesterday in Washington by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan are a source of real pride for all Canadians. NORAD and NATO are two key alliances within which Canada participates to help maintain world peace. The five-year renewal of the NORAD agreement is the decision of two autonomous nations to work in close co-operation to protect their sovereignty from the threat of airplane and Cruise missile attacks from the north.
By way of observation, yesterday's CBC Journal program was entirely devoted to an examination of the arms negotiation process. While this is a very important topic and an excellent program, it is lamentable that this program was not deferred to another evening. Canadians then would have been made more aware of the very significant events which were taking place in Washington.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, firmer financial and chronological commitments will have to be made later on, but the fact remains that an important step was taken yesterday in the fight against acid rain. President Reagan has acknowledged for the first time that acid rain is our common problem and that the United States are partly responsible for environmental damage in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the action taken by our Government in this field, and particularly of the leadership of our Prime Minister whose tenacity and determination were instrumental in convincing the President of the United States that it was important and urgent to do something. In 18 months in office, our Government has accomplished more in the fight against acid rain than the Liberals-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the 60 seconds have expired.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, today Peter Booth, the owner of a Petro-Canada station in my riding, is selling regular leaded gas for 46.1 cent a litre, a decrease of only 10 per cent, while the price for world crude has fallen by 50 per cent. There are some indications that competition has been severely curtailed since Petro-Canada's acquisition of Gulf's retail stations in Ontario and the west.
I still agree with the public policy objectives of Petro-Canada which were announced in 1974, which were to provide leadership in frontier exploration and development with at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership. We must achieve energy self-sufficiency so that we are not held to ransom as we were in 1974. However, 1 do not agree that the Government should be in the downstream retail gas station business. 1 urge my Government to take steps to ensure that Canadians will pay the lowest possible prices at the pumps, and to deal harshly with any companies dealing in price fixing schemes.
*
 *


ACID RAIN
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, as Member of Parliament for the constituency of Temiscamingue, the region of Quebec most severely affected by acid rain, 1 must voice my enthusiasm over the American President's statement in full support of the Davis-Lewis report recommendations.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, March 21 is a very important day in the life of wheelchair athlete Rich Hansen, marking for him one full year on the road. Since March of last year Rick has travelled more than 13,000 miles, and has 11,000 miles farther to go in his quest to travel the world on his Man-in-Motion tour.
While he is raising money for spinal-cord research, he is also breaking down the barriers, both physical and mental, faced
March 20, 1986

by the disabled throughout the world. So far Rick has visited 30 countries, with three more to go in the coming months. But nowhere on his journey did his heart cry out more for home than in Jerusalem at the sight of the Terry Fox Memorial Park.
Rick will soon be visiting China where he will be greeted in Beijing by the son of Chinese leader Den Xiaoping, who is also in a wheelchair. In the fall Rick returns to Canada for the final leg of his tour. I call on all Canadians to be ready to open their hearts to this brave and distinguished hero who has done so much to forward the cause of the disabled everywhere in the world.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it was not easy, but thanks to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) President Reagan has finally acknowledged acid rain as a serious transboundary problem. He has accepted the envoys' report and has pledged to kick off a $5-billion program over five years to tackle harmful long-range emissions. This is the same President who refused to recognize acid rain as a problem just last year. He has finally come onside.
The Prime Minister would have gained nothing by employing a wild-eyed gun-slinger approach with the President. It has long been said that an ounce of honey is worth a gallon of gall.
The federal Special Committee on Acid Rain can use the President's commitment to suggest a timetable to our counterparts in the U.S. where Bills are now being drafted favouring emission reductions of 10 million tons per year.
The Prime Minister has put us back on the road to environmental renewal.


REPORTED OFFER TO REDUCE OIL PRODUCTION IN ALBERTA
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Conservatives' belief in the free market system in oil is beginning to unravel, as the free market system is no longer providing the petroleum industry with the high prices the industry had hoped to obtain.
The Premier of Alberta is apparently willing to join with the largest cartel in the world and cut production of oil in Alberta. He has agreed to go along with the world price-fixers, the apostles of non-competition in the world market-some free market! I also find it disturbing that Canada should join OPEC without discussion with and agreement from the federal Government.
There is an alternative. It involves helping the small producers in Alberta by setting a made-in-Canada oil policy, with negotiated floors and ceilings with respect to price. In this way we can protect both the consumer and the small Canadian producer. In my view cutting oil production does not necessarily help the small Alberta producers.


ACID RAIN
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to focus particular attention on the major agreement on acid rain that was concluded yesterday by the President of the United States and our Prime Minister.
For the first time, the U.S. President has recognized the problem of acid rain and its disastrous effects on our environment. We should welcome this agreement with relief and look forward to an unqualified commitment from the U.S. Congress to release the funds required to reduce acid rain. This agreement between our two governments should have a number of positive repercussions.
I am thinking of a region like Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, where economic activity is very much dependent on our forests, and I am thinking of our pulp and paper industry, and the importance of the sports fishing sector, now that aquatic life is threatened in hundreds of lakes in my region.
We have the Prime Minister to thank for this agreement, and he is certainly the one who brought about this change in attitude within the U.S. Administration. It shows the difference between Conservative co-operation and Liberal confrontation tactics.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) likes to portray himself as being concerned about the disadvantaged in Canada. In the recent Maclean's-Decima survey, however, only 12 per cent of respondents perceived the Prime Minister as a champion of the poor. In fact 31 per cent said he is worse than any other Prime Minister.
His own pollster said it was the first time in six years of polling that "class-based" attitudes have emerged in Canadian public opinion. Indeed, 40 per cent of those in the low-income brackets said they felt the economy was not recovering.
In Metro Toronto alone, according to the Community Information Centre, the number of poor and needy is reaching

March 20, 1986
Oral Questions
"crisis proportions". It received 97,000 calls in 1985, with requests for food, clothing, and financial assistance. The number of calls for financial help went up by almost 50 per cent, as did the number of food banks. Unfortunately the February Budget, rather than addressing this phenomenon, only fueled the gulf of disparity which is growing across the land under this Conservative regime. That is most regrettable.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM ARGENTINA
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery today of a delegation of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives from Argentina, led by Senator Oraldo Britos and Representative Ricardo Terrile.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have been able to congratulate the Prime Minister-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: On what?


John Napier Turner: On his birthday.


An Hon. Member:: He took the day off.


John Napier Turner: For the second year in a row he has deprived us of that opportunity.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa and I are wearing spring flowers. It is coming up spring in the Ottawa Valley, but who would know it? Tomorrow is his birthday, and I want to wish him the best on behalf of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In the absence of the Prime Minister I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the subject of the Prime Minister's recent exercise in cosmetic diplomacy in Washington. Apparently the greatest achievement the Prime Minister claims is that he persuaded the President of the United States to recognize that a fact is a fact, namely, that acid rain is an
environmental killer, that it is poisoning North American lakes and rivers, that it is wrecking our drinking water, and that it is destroying our farms. Would the Secretary of State consider this to be anything more than a hollow victory, a victory surrounded by rhetoric, but short and empty of any concrete action?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I regard the accomplishments by the Prime Minister of Canada in the meeting with President Reagan in the last two days to be a very significant step forward on a number of fronts including, most important, the question of action with regard to acid rain. It is most important because the United States administration had the most distance to come.
As the Minister of the Environment said yesterday, it is only a first step. It is a step which was not capable of being accomplished by former Governments of Canada. It has been accomplished by the Prime Minister and this Government. We all looked forward to co-operation across the House, across the continent, and across federal-provincial relations to ensure that we continue to make progress against the enemy of acid rain.


OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have to concede that that was a brave try in the circumstances. The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows, or he must have read about it, that there is no commitment to any real action, there is no commitment to money unless American industry acts first, there is no timetable, and there is no schedule. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that what the President of the United States has acknowledged, at the expense of his own environment and of our environment is a five-year delay or a five-year moratorium-no action at all-postponing the problem into the future, while our rivers, lakes, and forests continue to be poisoned?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, not for the first time the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is out of date. There was a long delay in action on acid rain; that was when the Liberal Party was in government in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: There is no need to rely upon the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me quote from the headline in The Baltimore Sun-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: How long did it take you to find a good one?


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about quoting one from Missouri?
March 20, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 could quote from newspapers in Philadelphia, Washington, and New York. The point is that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that there has been no movement by United States authorities. That is not the view of observers in the United States. I quote only The Baltimore Sun and its headline: "U.S. Bows to Pressure by Canada, Agrees to Fight Acid Rain"-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A short supplementary, please.


John Napier Turner: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Right Hon. Member had quoted The High River Gazette. It would have carried more authority with this House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Wrong again.


MANNER IN WHICH GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO PROTECT NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT
John Napier Turner: Last year, Mr. Speaker, a one-year moratorium was put on concrete measures against acid rain. This time, however, after the talks with the President of the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order, please. The Hon. Member will please ask his question.


John Napier Turner: This time, instead of a one-year moratorium, the President managed to obtain a five-year postponement.
Could the Minister explain to Canadian men and women how this Government intends to protect the North American environment with negotiations and results like these?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as far as The High River Times is concerned, 1 will quote from it tomorrow.
Regarding the agreement in Washington, for the first time in the history of our two countries, the U.S. Government has shown its determination and has agreed to fight acid rain. This is thanks to the leadership and determination shown by the Prime Minister of Canada.
This is a real achievement for Canada, and I hope that for once the Opposition will concede that something was accomplished by Canada outside its borders.


ANNOUNCEMENT MADE BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of the Environment. President
Oral Questions
Reagan, when he addressed this House of Parliament on March 11, 1981, said:
We want to continue to work co-operatively to understand and control the air and water pollution that respects no borders.
Would the Minister explain to us and to the country why yesterday's announcement is such a significant shift in policy? Would he explain that to us, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the presidency of the incumbent, the President of the United States-


Mr. Caccia:: He was already President.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -has recognized the seriousness of acid rain.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is more accurate than Joe.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The President has recognized that acid rain is serious, not only in Canada but also in the United States. He has recognized that it is serious in both countries because of its transboundary nature.
The President has established mechanisms to ensure that the issue will be resolved and will not go away until it has been resolved. He has committed hundreds of millions of dollars for that purpose, and that progress is light years away from the case of the United States President when the Liberal Party was in government for 25 years.


RESULT OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that, as a result of yesterday's endorsement, not one ounce of S02 emissions will be reduced as far as Canada is concerned?


Thomas Michael McMillan: No,
Mr. Speaker. The President of the United States has endorsed, without qualification, categorically, the full contents of the acid rain report tendered to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada in which, on page 30 appears this sentence:
-although the primary purpose of this ... program is to demonstrate the kinds of technologies that would be needed for any future acid rain control program, it should also result in ... near term reductions in U.S. air emissions that affect Canadian ecosystems.
Read the report. It is there in black and white. The President of the United States has endorsed it 100 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATURE OF AGREEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the same Minister, on the same subject, a day ahead of my birthday, and 1 hope he will give me a present in advance by answering the question.

March 20, 1986
Oral Questions
The Minister said in December last with reference to the Davis-Lewis report, before it came out:
-if it (only) talks about research and modernization and technology, it will be transparently superficial.
Since what President Reagan has now agreed to is not a timetable for emission controls, but for research, modernization, and technology, why is this agreement anything other than transparently superficial?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that on page 4 of the envoys' report the two envoys have recommended processes to lead to "a bilateral accord which will jointly address a common problem in the best tradition of U.S.-Canadian environmental relations".
In Washington yesterday and the day before, the President of the United States committed himself to a process designed to lead to targets, schedules, and commitments of cash. That agreement is well beyond research.
1980 MEMORANDUM OF INTENT


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we now have a commitment to a process. That is wonderful. I will try to minimize my rhetoric if the Minister will do the same in replying.
In 1980 an agreement reached between President Carter and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, committed the United States to the view that there was a common problem with acid rain and to future research to deal with the problem. Therefore, why is the Government of Canada now saying, because President Reagan has finally caught up with the position which President Carter took six years ago, that there has been an historic breakthrough?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if I stripped the Leader of the NDP of his rhetoric, he would have nothing to say.


John Edward Broadbent: You can do better than that.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The memorandum of intent between Canada and the United States was signed in August of 1980. Most of the negotiations which led to that MOI were completed then by the present Minister of External Affairs in the Progressive Conservative Government, when he was Prime Minister.


John Edward Broadbent: So what?


Thomas Michael McMillan: The memorandum of intent was not moved one inch thereafter. It was pious statement of intent. What we now have goes well beyond an expression of intent.


Mr. Nystrom:: It's Pious II.


Thomas Michael McMillan: We have a recognition of the problem and of the transboundary nature of it, a commitment to a process,
and a further commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars of cash from the American Treasury for acid rain abatement. That is well beyond what was achieved in 1980.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


COMPENSATION OF MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question concerns the fact that as a result of the disastrous effects of U.S. acid rain on forests in Quebec, maple syrup producers are going to lose millions of dollars in income this year.
My question is quite simple: Who is going to pay for this loss of income?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, all of us in society will have to pay the cost of abatement, because we are all contributing, through our respective activities, to the problem.


John Edward Broadbent: Are the Americans going to pay their share?


Thomas Michael McMillan: For 25 years the Liberal Party was in office, except for seven or eight months. During all of that time successive Liberal Prime Ministers would not raise the issue even in the House of Commons, let alone in Washington.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SULPHUR EMISSIONS INQUIRY
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of the Environment. A spokesman for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has called the Canada-U.S. acid rain deal a good PR campaign and a stall tactic. He said that we are no further ahead. Will the Minister not admit that specific targets for the reduction of sulphur emissions are significantly absent from the U.S. President's half-hearted and feeble commitment to the acid rain problem?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when the Government was elected in September, 1984, nothing had been done to push the acid rain issue even an inch during the quarter of a century that the Liberal Party was in power.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not true.


Thomas Michael McMillan: When we took office in September of 1984 we started with a blank page as far as acid rain was concerned. The President of the United States was then attributing acid rain purely, or largely, to natural phenomena: volcanoes, trees, and even ducks. Within 18 months the Prime Minister of Canada, an Irishman from Baie Comeau, was able to do what
March 20, 1986

environmentalists and legislators on both sides of the border could not do, that is, convince Ronald Reagan that acid rain was serious. That is a major accomplishment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REACTION IN UNITED STATES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that Senator Max Baucus of Montana said that he is surprised that the President did not come up with more, and that the Prime Minister let him get away with it? Why doesn't the Minister stop puffing himself up and agree that what we got out of Washington on acid rain was precious little?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is adept at quoting selectively. Yesterday the Governor of New Hampshire, who has been a very outspoken critic of the President's record on acid rain, hailed the accord as a landmark achievement by the Prime Minister in his relations with the United States, as did the Governor of Wisconsin, and the Governor of Illinois. Those are only three powerful critics of the President on this issue who have declared yesterday's accomplishment a major one.


ONTARIO FISHING LODGES AND CAMPS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of the Environment. Even though President Reagan has accepted the report, we will not have any significant reduction in acid rain for at least the five-year period of research. The Minister spoke earlier about the cost of abatement. I want to ask him about the cost of non-abatement and non-action.
What contingency plans does the Government have for the hundreds of fishing camps and lodges in Ontario which the envoy report itself predicted would have to be closed by the year 2000 if nothing happened? At least several hundreds of those will certainly have to be closed in the foreseeable future as a result of no action. What is the Government going to do for those people whose livelihoods will be destroyed by the lack of action on the part of the American Government?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is totally false. Everything is not going into a deep freeze for the next five years as a result of what was achieved at the summit yesterday and the day before. In fact, as I said yesterday in the House, and as the President himself acknowledged in Washington, this is not the end of the road but the beginning of it.
There is an agreement on the seriousness of the problem and on the transboundary nature of it. There is a commitment to a process which will ensure that this issue is not a one-summit wonder. The issue will not go away until it is resolved. We are committed to that exercise, and finally, as a result of the
Oral Questions
actions of the Prime Minister, the President of the United States is, as well.


FUTURE OF AFFECTED CANADIANS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment says this is the first step on a long road. I agree that it is a long road. What is he going to do for the people whose livelihoods will be affected by what is going to happen in the next five years, rather than by what is going to happen at the end of the process which has been established now? What does the Government of Canada intend to do for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose economic base depends on the environment which acid rain is now eroding?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks what the Government of Canada is going to do. I will tell you what it has already done and what it is going to do. We have committed ourselves to an expenditure of $300 million, $150 million of which is directly related to acid rain abatement. We have signed agreements with seven provinces to reduce acid rain causing-emissions by 50 per cent by 1994, based on 1980 figures. We have introduced regulations which will slash, by one-half, allowable emission controls for motor vehicles. We are embarked upon a major program with the Heritage Foundation to address the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is justifiably mortified by the results of the acid rain discussions, so I will move to another subject to get it off the hook for a moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Did the Prime Minister raise Canada's concerns with respect to the President's policy on Nicaragua, that is, more military aid for the Contras? Can the Secretary of State explain why he was not at that meeting to press that case on behalf of the Canadian Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister raised with the President, as I, the week before, had raised with Secretary of State Shultz, the difference in view between Canada and the United States of the nature of the problem in Central America and, consequently, the nature of the solution.


CANADIAN POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Well, would the Secretary of State tell us what the nature of the

March 20, 1986
Oral Questions
solution was that was raised by the Prime Minister, and what the President said?


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member on his appointment as spokesman for his Party on external affairs. We will arrange for him briefings on matters relating to Central America and any other area where he has an obvious need for information.
Canada's position is that the basic problems in Central America are social and economic in origin. The solutions should be social and economic, not military. We have made that position clear on a number of occasions. We have backed up our views with action. There has been a tripling of development assistance by the Government of Canada for countries of Central America.
We have played a leading role in trying to make the Contadora process effective.
We have indicated our willingness to contribute to the solution of border disputes which might arise in that region.
That is Canada's position, and that is the position the Prime Minister outlined and which we intend to continue to follow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. American acid rain has poisoned many of the water systems in eastern Canada. The special envoys' report indicates that 90,000 jobs are at risk in the Atlantic commercial fishery. Will the Minister tell this House who is going to pay for the loss of those 90,000 jobs? Is the Canadian taxpayer again going to pay for American poisoning of our water systems?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Hon. Member should think that Canadians enter this room with clean hands. We are responsible for 50 per cent of the acid rain-causing emissions which destroy Canadian fish, lakes, rivers, streams, and forests. We bear some responsibility. Because we do so, this Government has made agreements with the seven most offending provinces to slash acid rain-causing emissions by one-half by 1994, based on 1980 figures. That is a substantial Canadian achievement. It is a credit to Canada and greatly strengthens our moral authority in trying to get a corresponding arrangement out of the Americans.


FORECAST LOSS OF JOBS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the acidity of Atlantic Canada water systems is up 12 times over the last 30 years? This is killing off the Atlantic salmon at an enormous rate and many, many jobs will be lost. Will he now tell this House who the hell is going to pay for the loss of those jobs?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That shows the lack of a vocabulary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The language-order, please.


Raymond John Skelly: May I withdraw that?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member wishes to withdraw the last part?


Raymond John Skelly: I wish to withdraw that, and ask who in heaven is going to pay for those 90,000 jobs?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, this is probably as close as the Hon. Member will get to that place.


John Napier Turner: Which one?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is with the NDP; that is purgatory.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The Hon. Member asks me who is going to pay. I will tell him who is going to pay. To begin with, the federal Government is going to pay $300 million over the next four years. The seven provinces concerned are participating in the great national acid rain effort, which was put together as a result of the initiatives of this Government. The total price will be $2 billion, of which industry will be required to pay about 50 per cent.


UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth. Senator Hebert has reminded us that there are over 750,000 young people out of work. The Minister knows there is broad agreement across Canada that the Government's efforts are inadequate. We must do something more to help this lost generation. Has the Minister understood this message, and what is she prepared to do about it?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is well aware that young people are facing tremendous difficulties. That is why we have set up job creation and training programs, to make up for-
March 20, 1986


Mr. Rossi:: What programs?


Andrée  Champagne: -the long years of neglect. Mr. Speaker, we should recall that in 1983, youth unemployment was at 19.9 per cent, and the Liberals were not doing much about it. Since we came to power, youth unemployment has dropped more than 2 per cent, 50,000 jobs have been created, and more than 200,000 young people will be taking part in training programs this year.


Carlo Rossi: You certainly had nothing to do with it.


SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Minister has obviously not read the Senate's plan of action.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have it upside down.


David Berger: Will she read it and take immediate action to implement its recommendations, some of which do not call for spending money? Will she act now?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, if this Government had acted, let us say, in January, before this very important report was presented, even before the NDP report was presented, people would have said we acted before the reports were presented. Yes, we are studying this report very carefully and some of the recommendations will be implemented when this Government is ready to do so.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses). [English]
Many Canadians have the desire to start a small business in the spirit of free enterprise, but cannot get financing. Can the Minister tell this House if he is contemplating any new programs which will help Canadians obtain the needed working capital to establish a small business?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member. The Federal Business Development Bank and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion are working together to develop a program for venture capital addressed specifically to small business. We know that small business is undercapitalized and we are looking at options to solve the problem because small business can be an instrument of growth and, therefore, more jobs, jobs, jobs.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Doctor Bruce Forster of the University of Guelph Economics Department gave evidence before a committee of this House in November that the reduction in forest productivity because of acid rain deposition at 5 per cent means an annual commercial timber loss of $197 million, and $1.29 billion for the disruption of wildlife habitat and recreation. Since 50 per cent of this damage is from U.S. sources, who is going to pay for the $1.5 billion plus damage to our forests?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, because of its transboundary nature it is imperative that the Governments of the U.S. and Canada join in a continental effort to resolve the question he has addressed himself to, and to pay the price for it.


CAUSE OF ACID RAIN
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the President of the U.S. used to say that acid rain came from trees. The study which is out now says it comes from bird droppings. Does the Minister believe in either of those?


Thomas Michael McMillan: No,
Mr. Speaker, but I suspect that the Hon. Member's question is akin to the latter.


MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Youth). The Minister is trying to take the credit for certain figures. I want to ask the Minister: At a time when hundreds of groups and thousands of young people are organizing and all kinds of organizations are demanding action, how can she simply point to her record and ignore their demands for immediate action? What is she waiting for?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I think this Government has veen very active, and we shall continue to take action. If the Hon. Member for Shefford means to refer once again to the decision on Katimavik, I may remind him that on July 21, 1984, he himself said that we should not see Katimavik as more than it is, because although some young people were interested in working in the forestry sector, that did not mean everybody wanted to work there.

March 20, 1986
Oral Questions


ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister should realize that when we were discussing forestry, we were talking about Environment 2000.
Now that the Senator is into the eleventh day of his hunger strike, and all Canadians are supporting his gesture, is the Minister so heartless and her conscience so accommodating that he would refuse to announce new programs, for purely political reasons-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order, please.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I don't think anyone is taking Senator Hebert's gesture lightly.
However, I don't think asking the Government to announce projects when it is not ready to do so is very worthwhile.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should recall that about ten years ago, it took only a single pencil stroke to abolish the Company of Young Canadians, the Opportunities for Youth Program, Local Initiatives-


Jean-C. Lapierre: They were replaced.


Andrée  Champagne: -sure, they were replaced.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order, please. The Hon. Member for Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the House, I know, will be very glad to know that we have just received the results of the vote in the U.S. Congress and that the House of Representatives has voted against military aid to the Contras.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


Pauline Jewett: Two hundred and twenty-two to 210. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he had, in addition to speaking with officials in Washington and to the Secretary of State, also talked with our friends in Congress about our position in Canada, namely, that there is not a military solution to the problems in Central America.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not done that. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to meet with Members of the
Senate and Congress Committees on Foreign Relations the other day. I do not know if that question came up. There should be no doubt that the position of Canada is very well known by authorities in the United States, and I would imagine by many of the Members of the Congress and the Senate of that country.


IMPENDING VOTE IN UNITED STATES SENATE
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, may 1 then ask whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would, in view of the fact that the Senate vote is tomorrow, be willing to talk to our friends in the Senate, and particularly some who might be waivering and who do not know what the Canadian position is? Would he do that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that Members of the New Democratic Party, who object violently when there is any suggestion by any American about Canadian policy, would suggest that I, as the Foreign Minister of Canada, should go down to the United States and instruct United States Senators on how they should vote on a matter that is before their Senate.


PROGRESS IN CANCER RESEARCH
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the daffodils that we are wearing today come to us compliments of the British Columbia chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society and are a reminder that April is Canadian Cancer Society month.
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. What information can he give to the House and to the country on the progress that Canada is making in cancer research, given the fact that one out of three Canadians become victims of cancer, and one out of five Canadians will die of cancer?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Members of the House would want to identify with the Member's comments regarding the contribution the Canadian Cancer Society and the provincial chapters have made to cancer research.
I want to tell the Hon. Member that cancer research in Canada has been carried on not only by the Medical Research Council, the various cancer societies, but only NHRDP of the Department of Health and Welfare. We have first-class cancer research. For example, we get publicity on Interluken, out of the United States. That same kind of research is being carried on in Canada. While that research has to be continued we should make a point that diet and smoking are two cases where preventive methods should be used to prevent cancer-
March 20, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Important as it is, it is becoming a speech.


CRUDE Ol L-REPORTED OFFER TO CUT PRODUCTION IN ALBERTA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Premier Don Getty of Alberta in a telephone conversation with Sheik Yamani has offered a cut in the production of Alberta oil to try to halt the world decline in crude oil prices. Was this telephone call made with the prior approval of the federal Government, and what is the federal Government's position with respect to the offer that Premier Getty has made?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Premier Getty this morning after I had seen those reports. Premier Getty fully understands that the Government of Canada speaks for Canada on international questions. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Liberal and the New Democratic Party think that someone else should speak on international policy for Canada. We believe it is the responsibility of this Government, and we do it.
I want to assure the Hon. Member, and through him others who are interested, that Canada will continue to co-ordinate our approach to international energy issues with other members of the international energy agency.


OPEC COUNTRIES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if Canada has received any requests from any of the OPEC countries to cut oil production, and what Canada's position would be if such a request were made.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In reply to the Hon. Member the answer is no, we have not had that request.


REQUEST FOR BAN ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my qestion is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who will have seen the estimates published today of the additional harm caused by cigarette smoking, namely, the 500 infant deaths and 6,000 miscarriages caused every year. Will the Minister, instead of wearing a daffodil to show good will, do what the Cancer Society and all the other health protection societies are asking, and that is introduce tough
Oral Questions
legislation, specifically to ban advertising for a product that is responsible for 35,000 deaths a year in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do think it is important to wear symbols that indicate to Canadians our thanks for the work that cancer societies and volunteers have done. 1 think that is important. Second, regarding the Member's request that further action be taken both on advertising, on smoking within public conveyances, on legislation relating to smoking in public places, as 1 have indicated to her before, when Cabinet has made that decision that matter will be coming forth. I think it will commend itself to the House.


AMOUNT SPENT ON ADVERTISING BY CIGARETTE COMPANIES
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not agree that since there are so many people dying from cancer every year the cigarette companies have to advertise, and the amounts they are spending of $200 million a year are indeed necessary to replace those people. Will he agree that we cannot compete with that by curing cancer afterwards? Prevention must lie our goal. Would he not agree that we cannot do this without having an absolute ban on advertising, and would he undertake-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. This is long.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if I had my way I would like to see Canada, let's say by the end of this century, smoke free. 1 would like to think that we should move as a society toward that goal when we have 30,000 deaths a year related to smoking. There is no single preventable disease that I know of in Canada that, in fact, we should pay more attention to, and that is why this Minister has done it.
In terms of advertising, in terms of the cigarette companies and the tobacco companies, I have asked them, for example, to pull advertising from Ontario's Wonderland. I have called them in to change some advertising on Tempo cigarettes. I am simply saying to the Member that further action is being considered along the lines that she suggests and I take her representation under advisement.
 * *


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications. Canadians of Baltic origin were horrified by the CTV network's broadcasting of Highway to Heaven, which defames and slanders Canadians of Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian origins. Does the Government intend to press charges against CTV under Section 281.1 of the Criminal Code which makes communica-

March 20, 1986
Oral Questions
tion of statements inciting hatred against an identifiable group an indictable offence?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC already has full authority to examine the question of broadcasting hate material that is contrary to law under the provisions of the Criminal Code. I would also like to point out that Bill C-20, now before the House, proposes an amendment to deal with abusive programming on the basis of race and national or ethnic origin.
I would remind the Member that responsibility for programming and editorial content remains that of the broadcasters who are answerable under the law.
 * *


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In a Canadian Press interview in February, the Solicitor General said:
A new maximum security institution would cost about $50 million. I have farmers in my constituency who are on the verge of bankruptcy and I would like to see that money go to them instead of going into building new prisons.
Will the Solicitor General have the courage of his convictions and tell the Prime Minister that the Port Cartier prison in Manicouagan should not be built?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, Parliament has been given the opportunity to look at the Nielsen task force reports. It will be looking at the issue of penitentiary construction for the future.
It is interesting to note that two days ago the Hon. Member took the position that there should be no construction of a penitentiary in Quebec. Could he indicate whether he was speaking for his Party, or was his colleague, the former Solicitor General, the Member for York Centre, speaking for his colleagues when, in 1984, he announced the construction of a protective custody institution in Quebec?


MINISTER'S POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for the Solicitor General is very simple. Does he, as Solicitor General, support the construction of a new prison that is proposed for Port Cartier in Manicouagan? Does he support the construction of the prison?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. My question is also very simple. Who speaks for the Liberal Party? Is it the Member for York Centre who, as Solicitor General, announced construction of a facility, or is it the Hon. Member who is calling for it to be cancelled?


PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPING POLICY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth. She indicated that she was paying close attention to the recommendations in the Senate Committee report and to the New Democratic Party Task Force Report on Youth. Is she giving the same kind of importance to the participation of youth and consultation with youth in the development of policy affecting youth as was given by those two reports? In particular, what has been the role of her Youth Advisory Committee and to what extent has she consulted with other youth groups in the country in developing a youth program?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, consultation with youth groups has been ongoing since the fall of 1984. We have had regional forums. We have met with young people, I have an advisory committee composed of 24 young people from all across Canada and we are constantly in touch. We will be meeting again shortly. The policy of our Government is to have ongoing consultations.


REQUEST FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, very little real consultation took place during the fora. The national forum was cancelled and not rescheduled. Therefore, will the Minister promise to the youth that she will begin far more intensive consultations with them now than has transpired so far? Surely cancellation of the national youth forum is a bad start-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is long.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville that there was very little consultation throughout the year. I have met constantly with youth groups and youth service organizations and we will continue to do so.
The national forum has been postponed for the time being, but consultation is ongoing. We will continue to meet with young people and our studies will take into account what they are telling us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


POINT OF ORDER
Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier I rose pursuant to Standing Order 21 to compliment a Vancouver radio station for the donation of daffodils to Members in this Chamber. It would appear that we have received two bundles of daffodils today, one from the radio station and another from the Canadian
March 20, 1986

Cancer Society. 1 want to say on behalf of my colleagues in the Chamber that we appreciate the donations from both organizations.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, what business does the Government House Leader intend to call for the coming week, until the Easter break?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should say in response to the House business question that 1 have been trying to find a way to accommodate all Parties with respect to the scheduling of Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Petroleum Incentives Program Act. I believe there may be a disposition to call this Bill forward tomorrow as the first item of business. At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) and the energy critic for the New Democratic Party, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) would have an opportunity to speak to this Bill at third reading. Following the speeches of these two Members, the House would then immediately revert to Bill C-99, An Act to provide Borrowing Authority.
Following the completion of Bill C-99 we will consider Bill C-91, An Act to establish a Competition Tribunal. Bill C-85 will then be called in order to permit the energy critic for the Liberal Party to speak at third reading. This will be followed by Bill C-100, the veterans affairs omnibus Bill and Bill C-62, An Act respecting Employment Equity.
It is my intention to designate Monday, March 24, 1986, as the final allotted day in this supply period. We will continue with the Bills, in the sequence that I announced earlier, on Tuesday and Wednesday.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been some lapse on consultations. With respect to Bill C-85, I am not ready to agree to that approach. 1 think we will have to look into it further and perhaps speak to it later in the day.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought there had been some discussion on the matter between the critics, but I am certainly quite prepared to meet and accommodate the Official Opposition with respect to dealing with that Bill.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, lest there should be any misunderstanding, 1 was aware that this was in the works, I am not quite sure what happened to the communication process but I hope we can work it out along those lines because it seemed to be the most satisfactory way to meet everyone's requirements.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodriguez:
That this House recognizes the unnecessary hardship inflicted on older Canadian workers by the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Actwhieh cause pension benefits to be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, and since votes on opposition molioins arc no longer considered a question of confidence in the Government, therefore urges the Government to repeal those changes immediately.
Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) has seven minutes remaining.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue to speak to our motion which claims that the Government has been unfair in causing pension benefits to be considered earned income for the purposes of unemployment insurance benefits.
One of the arguments that has not been raised is that pension income is really deferred income. In other words, if an employee did not have a pension as part of a wage package until retirement, that individual would receive higher salary benefits during the period of time he or she is working. Therefore, I suggest that pension income is really deferred income. It is income that an employee would have otherwise received if he or she had not, by agreement or otherwise, delayed the payment of that income until retirement age. It is irrelevant whether or not that employee retires at age 65 or younger. If they had chosen to receive that income during their working life, they would have received it then and the Government would not have any claim today. It seems to me that in all of those cases, what this Government is doing is totally unfair.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, has already pointed out, the total savings to the Government on the backs of unemployed Canadians will be to the tune of some $300 million. That $300 million which comes from the unemployed, who need the money most at that time, is simply just another rip-off when one considers what the Government has already done in the 18 months it has been in office. As pointed out during Question Period and other times-which has never been disputed by the Government-the average Canadian family has received a tax increase of something like $1,300 over the last 18 months since the Government was elected. What the Government is doing here is just simply another grab at the average Canadian taxpayer. Only this time, rather than going after the employed taxpayer, it is going after those who are unemployed. That is totally unfair and unjustified.
A lot of debate this morning dealt with military personnel. There are also other employees in the Canadian economy who are not in the military but who are affected by this policy. In Toronto, for example, the Massey-Ferguson Company has

Supply
decided to close up its operation at its Strachan Avenue plant. Many of its employees are covered by a collective agreement which allows them to retire after 30 years' service. If they had not elected through the collective bargaining process to delay that benefit until such time as they retired, they would have had an increased salary during their working life. Those employees now find that because the company has decided to close up operations they will be laid off, and after all those years of paying into the unemployment insurance fund they will not be able to collect the benefits.
Some Members of the Government have taken issue with Members of the Opposition by saying that the Government did not act hastily, that somewhere or other it had this on its agenda. We are told this is why the Government asked the Forget Commission to look into these matters. If the Government was being fair, forthright and honest with Canadians and with this House, surely to goodness, rather than jump in and do what it did as of the beginning of this year, it could have delayed the process, referred the matter to the Forget Commission-if it felt it was advisable to do so-and wait until the report came down before it changed the regulation. That would have been the fair thing to do with respect to Canada's employees and to this House. At least in that way the Minister could have tabled the document in the House and allowed debate to take place around the document itself.
Rather than do that, the Government changed the regulation by Order in Council without any consultation with the people who would be affected, or their representatives, such as Members of Parliament, and we are forced in order to get the debate into the House to move a motion on an opposition day as was done by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. I am glad he has done so because he has given focus to this debate to which Canadians can listen. They can watch very carefully how Members of the Government decide to vote.
As I pointed out earlier, under the new system of parliamentary reform this motion will not necessitate the defeat of the Government if Members of the Conservative Party choose to follow their own conscience and the wishes of their constituents by supporting this motion.
I see my good friend sitting opposite, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). I can see in his eyes that he is in total sympathy with what I am saying. He comes from a constituency where there are people employed in the automobile industry who are subject to periodic lay-offs. Many of those people believed him and voted for him on the basis of "job, jobs, jobs". Now those employees are finding that the Conservatives did not follow through on the promise of "jobs, jobs, jobs". Instead, what they have is "taxes, taxes, taxes". The average Canadian family will have additional taxes to pay by this change in the regulation, in addition to all the other taxes they have had to endure in the last 18 months.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend and colleague. I am not saying I agree with him, but he put his case very well. I will confine my comments to the way the Government votes on the motion. I have two points to make; First, the precedent which we may be making with
March 20, 1986
respect to questions of confidence and, second, I suggest that the House may have two questions before it at the same time. I point out that there is contained in the motion a comment on the practices of the House concerning votable motions.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not only be interested, but fascinated to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis). But as I listened to his preamble I sensed that he was about to speak of the technical make-up of the motion. I would offer to you. Sir,that it would be appropriate to discuss that under a point of order, if the Hon. Member believes there is something out of order or something which ought to be changed. If the Hon. Member is commenting on the merits of the motion or on the merits of the speech of my colleague, or if he is asking a question about the speech itself, I would say it is entirely appropriate for him to continue. However, if he is discussing the technical make-up of the motion, in other words, that the motion presents the House with a dilemma or a question other than the question of its merit, then I would suggest that that is a point of order and it should be dealt with separately. I would be delighted to enter into that discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is trying to pre-empt the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis)?


Ian Deans: No, I am happy to hear him if it is a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not feel at this stage of the game that I can consider the matter, as a point of order, until I hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for the Beaches (Mr. Young), towards the end of his remarks made the point that the Government benches could very easily vote against this motion because it was not a question of confidence. That is to what I was directing my remarks. I am separating my remarks from the issue at hand, which is a valid issue for debate.
There are two points I would like to make. First, by taking the reference to confidence out of the standing orders we tried to place a new focus on questions of confidence. If we are going to have questions of confidence designated, they should be clearly designated.


Ian Deans: I agree.


Philip Derek Lewis: We have here a motion which does not clearly designate whether or not it is a question of confidence. We have no hesitation in saying that some day in the future we will move towards a situation where confidence can be a freer thing than it is right now. If you check the headings in the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, you will find it refers to
March 20, 1986

questions of supply. "Supply" has always been a matter of confidence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If I may interject here for just one moment. I can now understand what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain was saying. I do not want to get involved in so far as what the motion does or does not state. I do not want to get into any argument or debate with any Hon. Member in the Chamber as far as the motion is concerned. The question and comment period is time set aside for Hon. Members to ask questions and make comments on other Hon. Members' speeches. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is coming to the close of his remarks.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wished to make two points. I have been able to make only one, thanks to some interruptions and some assistance. I will not specify from whom I receive the assistance and by whom I was interrupted.
The first point I wished to make is that the motion is ambivalent with respect to whether or not this is a matter of confidence.


Ian Deans: It is absolutely clear.


Philip Derek Lewis: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain may not agree with me, but that is my opinion. That is the point I wished to make in direct reference to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Beaches toward the end of his speech. He also referred to the motion, and I appreciate that it is a motion which has been accepted by the "Table. I have no difficulty with that. However, there are two distinct questions in the motion. I think something should be made clear on two scores when dealing with our first question of confidence. The first time the House has a motion before it on which every Member is free to break ranks it should specifically state in the motion whether or not it involves a question of confidence. Further, we should not be voting on two distinct questions. That is the comment I wished to make in response to my hon. friend's remarks.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, in turn, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member's comments. I wish to make it unequivocally clear that we in the New Democratic Party do not consider this a motion which would be in any way considered a nonconfidence motion. It is our view that if members of the Conservative Party choose to vote for or against it, then that would not affect the standing of the Government at all. In fact, it seems to me that the motion is in the spirit of responses made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration in the House to questions concerning this matter. She has indicated that if the Forget Commission recommends that the Government rescind its decision with respect to this regulation, then it would be willing to look warmly upon such a recommendation. Therefore, I wish to assure the Hon. Member that in no way is the motion considered to be one of non-confidence in the Government.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before 1 entertain more questions or comments I would like to make a brief remark. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council did not think that the Chair was interfering in what the Hon. Member was saying. I am trying to recall whether the Hon. Member's interjection meant that the Chair interfered with the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the speech of the Hon. Member for Beaches. I am sure that is not what he meant. The Chair does not interfere with motions which are before the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would not for one minute suggest that you are interfering with or interrupting me. I just wanted to come as close as I possibly could to complimenting my colleague who sits opposite for being so helpful.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) to comment upon the group of people who fall into the category of those who earn more than $30,000 inclusive of unemployment insurance benefits and who have the benefit removed from them. Will the Hon. Member comment on that in the spirit of the motion which is before the House?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to comment. I believe the Hon. Member is asking a question in response to an interjection made by a Government Member who said words to the effect that the Opposition is trying to protect generals from the actions of the Government. In other words, he seemed to suggest that we are interested in seeing $60,000-a-year generals receive unemployment insurance benefits. That is exactly the same argument which was used when we expressed our concern with respect to what the Government may or may not be doing in terms of universal social programs. I do not think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) would have done anything like that. Other Ministers of the Crown have suggested that members of the NDP were trying to protect bank presidents who may or may not receive family allowances or some such thing.
At this time of year most people will have their income tax forms and are probably in the process of filling them out. These people will realize that on incomes over $30,000 per year unemployment insurance benefits are taxed back. Therefore, while I may feel some sympathy in terms of bank presidents and generals now and again, the fears which the Government has about our motives with respect to this motion are not well founded at all.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) is well known for his compassion and concern with respect to an array of social services. I think that he would have appreciated the initiative of the Government in taking a comprehensive look at the unemployment insurance package. It has not been looked at in such a broad and comprehensive way for decades. Surely such an initiative deserves the Hon. Member's support.
The first part of the mandate of the commission of inquiry is to undertake a comprehensive examination of the unemploy-

March 20, 1986
Supply
ment insurance program in light of the Government's over-all economic objectives. 1 made a point of attending one of the commission hearings at the Plaza II in Toronto. I met five of the six commissioners there. I must say that I was very impressed with their thoroughness. In no way do they form a passive commission which just sits and hears evidence. I heard members of the commission ask very probing questions of some of the witnesses who appeared before it. Having visited the hearings first hand I am satisfied with the calibre of the commission and with the Government's intention to take a comprehensive look at a whole array of issues.
As was mentioned earlier in the debate by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), I hope the Hon. Member will not support a piecemeal approach to this issue. Rather, I hope he will support the Government's approach in order to let the total strategy develop. I am sure he will see fairness and equity in the final recommendations.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no objection at all to the Forget Commission or what it is trying to do. In fact, I am inclined to support the commission since it has also stated that it thinks that what the Government has done is absolutely wrong. I fully expect the Forget Commission, or at least members of it, to recommend that the Government do what this motion is asking it to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of general points as they relate to this question in the Province of Newfoundland. The first point is that all Armed Forces personnel in the Province of Newfoundland have been notified that they are not permitted to make representations to the federal Government in terms of disagreeing with this particular measure instituted by the Government of Canada. Members of the Armed Forces in the Province of Newfoundland are not allowed to sign petitions, to write letters or to make representations to Liberal Members of Parliament which in any way oppose this move by the Government of Canada. I do not know of any other example of that kind of action being taken by the Armed Forces in its dealings with its members or personnel in Newfoundland. It is not acceptable for people in the City of St. John's, in Gander or in Labrador to be told they are not allowed to sign a petition, write a letter, make a telephone call or make any representation to members of the opposition Parties. I do not believe this was ever done before by the Canadian Armed Forces. We do not live in a communist state; we have freedom of speech in Canada. For the Armed Forces to dictate like that to its personnel in Newfoundland is absolutely outrageous. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) should intervene. If he caused this particular action to be taken, he should withdraw it; if he did not cause it, he should reprimand the officials or whoever took that action. It is an absolute disgrace that Armed Forces personnel and their families in that province are not allowed to make representations to a politician because the
politician happens to be a member of the Liberal Party or of the New Democratic Party.
Let us look at the effect of this particular measure of the Government of Canada upon Newfoundland. There will be an approximate loss of $65 million, affecting 6,000 Newfoundlanders. Newfoundland has more people per capita who qualify for veterans' benefits than any other Canadian province. That is a somewhat recent phenomenon, because it has been decided that those who were in dangerous waters during the war qualify for civilian war veterans' allowances. We all know the figure which qualifies a person for unemployment insurance as well as the maximum amount and the minimum amount. If we take into account the average amount and the fact that 6,000 Newfoundlanders are affected by this measure, we find out that the amount of money going into the pockets of Newfoundlanders has been decreased by $65 million. That figure is despicable, as are the actual cheques which are being sent out. When a person receives his first cheque for unemployment insurance, it is for the first week of benefits, and two weeks after that he receives his unemployment insurance. He is paid two weeks at a time. As the House knows, unemployment insurance is averaged out to the closest dollar. If we use the divisor of the Government, we discover that in the Province of Newfoundland about 400 people are receiving cheques in the minimum amount, that is, the first cheque for $1 and then cheques for $2 thereafter.


John R. Rodriguez: How much does it cost to put out the cheque?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has just asked a good question. It actually costs $1.56 in Canada as a whole and $1.67 in Newfoundland to process one of those cheques.


John R. Rodriguez: Shameful.


George Baker: If we add in the costs involved after the cheque is cashed, we come up with another $1. It cost $2.67 to process a cheque worth $1; $2.67 to process a cheque worth $2.
Presently in the Province of Newfoundland there are 100,400 unemployment insurance claimants. In the month of January there were 100,668 unemployment insurance claimants, and there were 227,000 people in the workforce in that month. In the month of February there were 224,000 people in the workforce of the Province of Newfoundland. For the first time in the history of Newfoundland, over 100,000 people are listed as unemployment insurance claimants.


George Roland Henderson: Over 40 per cent.


George Baker: That is correct. It is over 40 per cent; in fact, it is closer to 48 per cent.
The Minister rose in the Chamber and said that the Government had created 8,000 jobs in Newfoundland in the past year. The provincial Government ran an advertisement in a newspaper indicating that it created 7,000 jobs in the past year in that
March 20, 1986

province. However, I checked with the unemployment insurance office in St. John's this morning at 10 o'clock and was given the figures to which I just referred. Who knows what is the unemployment rate in Newfoundland? If over 100,000 people out of a workforce of 224,000 are unemployed, how can the Government say that it created 8,000 jobs in the past year and that unemployment is going down? From where does the Government get its figures? From where does Statistics Canada get its figures? They indicate that the Province of Newfoundland has an unemployment rate of 20 per cent. Newfoundlanders are asking: "Where are all these jobs?" What is the Government of Canada doing with the unemployment insurance? Why is it acting as it has decided to act?
The Government of Canada announced that it would cut $200 million from unemployment insurance in the November 1984 Blue Book presented by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) in the Chamber. Also the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said that the Government would save $200 million. Well, that did not happen. The Measures which the Government instituted did not result in that. What has happened since those announcements? As of today, the President of the Treasury Board will pay out of the Goverment's tax dollars a bonus to regional managers in the Government of Canada who save the Government money. It is a pay-off. Who will receive that money? Will it be the deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers or regional managers? Who will receive this monetary bonus? This matter did not receive any attention in the House when the President of the Treasury Board rose and said that he would make payments to public service managers to become good managers like those in the private sector. He said that he would pay them a bonus if they met the guidelines for reducing the number of person-years. Person-years mean people, men and women working for the federal Government. If a manager does better than what was said by the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), and the former Minister of Finance who is now part of the ministerial task force on program review, he will receive a monetary bonus. I did not hear anybody from the Government object. Not very many of those who formulate public opinion, the opinion leaders in this country, the editorial writers, commented much about it.
Just think of what will happen, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the Government of Canada will meet its figure of a $200 million reduction in unemployment insurance. Yes, the Government will meet it in Newfoundland, I would say, and in practically every province in Canada.
Provinces like Newfoundland where the regional office is in Moncton, New Brunswick or Halifax, Nova Scotia or some other province will have reductions in what you call person years. You will see reductions in the amount of money paid out by the Government of Canada. How, Mr. Speaker? The President of the Treasury Board says: "We are going to give money. We are going to pay from taxpayers' dollars managers in the Public Service, reward them with cash to reduce the
Supply
payment of unemployment insurance and everything else, and we will cut back on the person years," that is, men and women.
I do not know why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is finding this amusing, but perhaps he will not in a moment. The ministerial task force, called the Nielsen task force, is made up of the Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and the former Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie).


John R. Rodriguez: From Newfoundland.


George Baker: A funny thing happened yesterday. The Minister of Justice said on the air, on CBC Radio in Newfoundland and on VOCM in Newfoundland, that he was not a part of the ministerial task force, that he was not party to the recommendations of the Deputy Prime Minister. He did not know what was in the recommendations of the task force.


John R. Rodriguez: He will never know.


George Baker: Why did he say that? Because there are things in those task force reports that you would not want to be associated with if you were a Newfoundlander.
The Province of Newfoundland, the great Tory Government that gets along so well with the present federal Tory Government-


George Roland Henderson: Did.


George Baker: Did, as of yesterday. It said it needed time to examine the transportation study on cuts. But all you have to do is to look at the index and you will find that one of the chief people in the study group is a representative of the Newfoundland Government. Also in the group is a member of the ministerial task force review, the Cabinet Minister from Newfoundland, the present Minister of Justice.
Now they are washing their hands of the entire procedure. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because of some of the things that have been agreed to, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows that because he sits in Cabinet. He knows that every single one of those task force reports have been taken by the ministerial group, submitted as recommendations, with time schedules, to the Planning and Priorities Committee of the federal Cabinet. The last report went to the committee on Thursday afternoon. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will not deny that because he knows it to be a fact. He will not say yes or no because of cabinet secrecy, but he knows that to be a fact. The Ministers are trying to wash their hands of the entire issue.
I want to mention just a couple of other things. 1 have a letter signed by two former public servants, one from Aylmer and the other from Ottawa.


Alan Redway: What about Newfoundland?


George Baker: Not from Newfoundland. I think these people have outlined the matter fairly simply. It is a point that has probably been missed by a lot of people.

March 20, 1986
Supply


Mr. Hudon:: $30,000 a year,


George Baker: Yes, the Hon. Member across the way says $30,000 a year. Every Member of Parliament, I believe, received the recommendations of these two people.
Very briefly, the matter concerns a public servant who has to pay into superannuation versus somebody else in the private sector who pays into an RRSP or other retirement plan. The public servant when he has finished, perhaps taken early retirement, who had worked and paid unemployment insurance, cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits. On the other hand, the man who paid into the scheme can draw unemployment insurance benefits. The absolute unfairness of the system, which the Government of Canada has initiated, is obvious to all Canadians.
Before I conclude I want to say one further thing about Newfoundland. While Newfoundland has large numbers of people on unemployment insurance claims, the Government of Newfoundland is facing a reduction in the amount of money it gets from the federal Government. This is either intentional by the Government of Canada or unintentional because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, our equalization payments in Newfoundland, as they are in Quebec and in a great many provinces, are tied to various economic factors, one of which is the price of oil. If the price of oil goes down $1, the Government of Newfoundland loses about $10 million on its equalization payments.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Do you want higher or lower prices? Which way do you want to go, George?


George Baker: The Minister of National Health and Welfare is interjecting. He says, "Higher or lower. George, what do you want?" I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare and other cabinet Ministers would examine that formula. I just said that if the price of a barrel of oil went down $1, the Government of Newfoundland would lose $10 million on its equalization payments at the end of the year.
The Minister is saying "What do you want? Lower oil prices?" If that dollar in the decrease of a barrel of oil were passed on to the consumers of Newfoundland, the slate would be clean. You add up the consumption of oil and gas in the Province of Newfoundland, and you discover that an average $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil equals about $10 million in increased costs in oil and gas consumption in Newfoundland. You can look at the equalization formula. It is really a form of indirect taxation. Every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up, the consumer pays about $10 million in the Province of Newfoundland, $1 a barrel averaged out. When the price goes up, the Province of Newfoundland then gets $10 million on its equalization payments. It is a form of taxation by the back door. It is indirect taxation. The Minister asks for my preference. I would prefer that the saving in the decrease in the price of oil be passed on to consumers. I would much rather see consumers in Newfoundland with that money than the Government of Newfoundland.
I want to refer to the Forget Commission. A great many Members have referred to it. Let me tell you who are the most knowledgeable people on unemployment insurance in Canada. It is not the Members of this Chamber, but if you added up all the knowledge on unemployment insurance, you would not come near to the knowledge of the judges, the umpires, in the Federal Court of Appeal. From time to time 1 review some of the decisions they make. I get them daily in the mail. Today I received decisions of Mr. Justice Dube, an excellent umpire, Mr. Justice Addy, Mr. Justice Cattanach, Mr. Justice Walsh, Mr. Justice Rouleau, Mr. Justice C. R. Smith, and Mr. Justice Dubinsky.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. There is a period allotted for questions and comments and 1 am sure that, being a very popular Member, he will get a few questions.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I have a few questions to ask, Mr. Speaker, but first I should like to make a comment.
On television recently the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) referred to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) as their new star. Quite true! I keep telling that to myself and to people around me, and the worst part of it is that it is true. That is not saying much about the others!
You have not earned the job of Minister of Finance today, Sir, because I have to tell you a few things.
First, how can you say that the measure under consideration today will result in $65 million cut-backs in Newfoundland? Your calculations are off: the Department of Employment and Immigration expects to recoup only $30 million from this measure throughout Canada.
Second, you have misled your constituents. Pensions paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act are not deductible as if they were unemployment insurance benefits. So there is no problem for all those who thought they were plying dangerous waters.
Finally, before asking my last question, I would like to make preliminary remarks. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people who want to retire one year before the normal retirement age because they are entitled to early retirement benefits. So I would ask my colleague how old were those Newfoundlanders, considering they had one year to go before retirement and yet took part in the 1939-45 war?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Relations, and it is obvious that it is not for internal relations. The hon. gentleman is wrong when he says that veterans' allowances and pensions are not covered. In fact, every pension that is
March 20, 1986

being received that was earned from work or service is being affected. However, a disability pension is not covered. That is the difference. The hon. gentleman is talking about someone on veteran's allowance who is receiving a disability pension. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I have many letters from, and have spent an awful lot of time on the telephone talking to, veterans who have been receiving $2 cheques when they had normally received $260 cheques. That is not a very good reflection on our veterans.
The hon. gentleman referred to one year before retirement age. I do not know exactly what he meant by that, but everyone who is receiving pension income from work or service for any Government or enterprise in Canada is affected. Therefore, I do not know what he is talking about.
The Member said that this will cost the Government of Canada $30 million. I must say that I have never seen such a mess in the Unemployment Insurance Commission as I have since this was announced by the Government. They do not know what they are doing. They do not know the formula. They are not allowed to deduct dollar for dollar, but they were doing it for two weeks. The Government of Canada has instituted something which the Public Service cannot administer and there will be appeals to these very knowledgeable Justices who should have been asked for their opinion by the Minister and by the Forget Commission.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my hon. friend. He asked questions of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) with respect to withdrawing this particular invidious regulation. The Minister said that the Government gave adequate notice, that people were told in November, 1984, that this would happen and if they are only now finding that their pension income will be used to calculate unemployment insurance benefits, it is their own fault. How does the Member respond to that particular proposition of the Minister? Do the Member and his Party consider this motion to be a question of confidence?


George Baker: No, Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of confidence because the Government of Canada has already expressed its opinion on such matters.
In answer to the first question of the hon. gentleman, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration stood in their places day after day and said that the Government did not bring this measure in out of the blue, that Canadians knew about it ages ago. Yes, it was in a Budget ages ago, but the first time that 99 per cent of the people affected knew about it was when their cheques were reduced.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and then ask a brief question of my colleague, the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). I would like to congratulate him on a very eloquent, explicit and factual speech, such as we always hear from the Hon. Member in the House. It is for that reason that this Member continues to be
Supply
returned with tremendous majorities in every election. Some of the people on the Government side will not be able to claim that because they are supporting a very ill-conceived regulation put forward by the Government.
Under the new rules they have a tremendous opportunity to show that they are concerned about their constituents and that they understand them. 1 plead with them to get up and vote against their own Government to help the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). When she was in opposition, that Minister demonstrated that she had a conscience for poor people in the country, which is more than she is doing now. However, it is some of the other Ministers who are controlling the Government. Mr. Speaker, the buck stops there.
I would like to ask the Member for Gander-Twillingate a brief question about the contributions of U1C which are taken from Armed Forces personnel. Does the Hon. Member feel that this is in the category of another form of back door taxation by the Government?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was absolutely correct in the first statement he made. It is good to remember the old saying: "If you sleep on the floor you can't fall out of the bed".
I agree with the second point the Member made. In fact, I believe we may have a case under the Human Rights Commission and under the Constitution. Taking money from people for an insurance policy on which they cannot collect is like buying public liability insurance on your car and then not being able to collect insurance when you have an accident. That is exactly the point. By law they are paying in and now, since the Tories took over, by law they cannot collect.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened in facination to the Hon. Member. Most of his comments did not deal with the motion at hand but they did deal with the question of unemployment insurance. The Hon. Member was highly critical of the UIC situation, not just because of changes made since the present Government took office, but before that. Specifically, what are the official policies of the Liberal Party that they would put in place to change the UIC provisions as they now stand? Secondly, how often did the Hon. Member stand in his place in this House as a member of the former Government and criticize his Minister on this very issue?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, let me say in answer to the second question that, 1 am sure that if he had been here over the past 12 or 13 years he would not be asking that question of this Member.
To answer question number one, I will just repeat that what the Forget Commission and the Government of Canada should do is to hear from all the justices of the Federal Court of Canada, the Appeal Court, and all of the umpires who handle unemployment insurance cases. Therein he will find real knowledge as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned.

March 20, 1986
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I intend to put on the record a few points regarding this motion on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). The Minister is in Saskatoon continuing a very impressive record of reaching agreements with various provinces on training programs. She has been most successful. I am sure all Members would want to commend her and the Government generally for the fact that since it has been in office Canada has seen the creation of 580,000 new jobs. This has come about largely through the efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Many of those jobs are filled by peole who were on unemployment insurance. It is also important to note that of those jobs more than 80 per cent are full-time. That means that families caught in the cycle of unemployment and parttime or seasonal jobs can now rely on full-time jobs. I think all of us would want to commend the Minister for that kind of job creation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unless I misunderstood, the debate today is on changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I wonder why the Minister, who is very knowledgeable in this area, does not stick to the subject matter.


Raymond John Skelly: I have a point or order also, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I find that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) does not have a point of order. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: It was called to the attention of previous speakers today that it was not appropriate to indicate that Members were absent from the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton East was referring to the absence of anyone. We only have another hour and 45 minutes and there are a few other Members in the Opposition who would like to participate in the debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, is it not strange? Someone points out that there are 580,000 new jobs and a lot of people are no longer on unemployment insurance. Creating jobs is the best way to get people off unemployment insurance. It is the best way to reduce the cost of Government. It is the best way to contribute to society. Yet we have Members getting up and saying, "Oh, you cannot talk about that. Just talk about the program. You cannot talk about the reality of job creation". What poppycock!
Let us go back to the time of changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Minister then was the Hon. Bryce Mackasey. I remember him getting up here day after day and saying it is a good Act but we do not want people collecting
unemployment if we can get them into jobs. The Act is designed in such a way that the taxpayer will pick up the shortfall if contributions from employers and employees are not sufficient. He was always arguing that we had to have this kind of coverage and it was always based on keeping unemployment as low as possible. In that ways the program would remain as efficient as possible. To have the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) make that kind of statement- maybe I should not even react because it is probably in keeping with the calibre of her other contributions.
I enjoy listening to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker). He gets up here and makes a number of points and does it with such conviction that at the end, if you did not know the weakness of the argument, you would almost want to believe what he said. For example, if the Government became more efficient, perish the thought, and costs could be reduced and managers became more efficient, the Government should not recognize that. It simply should not be done. He did not think it could work. There are a lot of managers in the Government, and I have met a lot of them, who are absolutely convinced that we can be more efficient and frugal with the taxpayer's dollar. Those men and women should not only be commended, they should be recognized. This idea is not too dissimilar from an approach used in a profession I was once in, namely teaching. I was one of the people who advocated merit rating. I did not really think tenure was that great an idea. We all had to cater to a certain common denominator. However, people were opposed to the merit principle because they simply did not want to be measured against certain standards. The Hon. Member has an open mind generally. I would like to think that he agrees that there can be a reduction in person-years and greater efficiency in the Government. We have allowed the light to shine in and we are going to do more. His own leader, if he still recognizes him as such, has said that had he been Prime Minister he would reduce the annual deficit by about 50 per cent in seven years. I would like to see him do it without going through some of the very exercises done by the study teams on program review.
He talked about the task force reports. Those reports were given to this House and its respective committees so we can do the work we were elected to do, that is, look at how tax dollars are spent, how they can be spent more effectively and efficiently in the future. That is the role of a Member of Parliament. We are not afraid of Members of Parliament being critical of the Government. The fact that people sit in the front benches, either in this Government or in previous Governments, does not mean that they know everything about all of the programs and that greater efficiencies cannot be effected. Canadians from all walks of life contributed their time, talent and experience so that we could do just that. The Hon. Member should keep that in mind.
I also want to take strong exception to a statement made by the Hon. Member that the Government of Newfoundland will suffer a reduction in contributions by the federal Government on established programs financing. That simply is not true. It is not true for Newfoundland, it is not true for any provincial
March 20, 1986

Government and it is not true for any Canadian society. If he looks at Bill C-90 he will notice very carefully that there is a built-in inflation factor in that Bill which will increase EPF, both for health care and for post-secondary education, up to one percentage point above projected inflation. So for him to say that there will be a reduction is just not so.


Édouard Desrosiers: He's a liar.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What he should point out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I believe I did hear an interjection which I do not consider to be parliamentary and I would hope that the Hon. Member would withdraw the remark. The Hon. Member will have to speak from his seat.
[ Translation)


Édouard Desrosiers: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, coming back to the EPF situation, I think it is important that Members in this Chamber, when they make a defence or say that they oppose a Government action, at least stay with the facts, and the facts are simply that EPF is going to rise over the next five years. I can give him figures that EPF is projected to go from the last five-year block of $65 billion for those two programs about $90 billion for the next five years.
If Members on the opposite side are fair they will have to recognize that that is not a reduction, that is an increase. I think what they are talking about is that if the present formula had been extended for another five years, the amount of money would have been greater than that which is now included in the legislation. If that is the argument they want to make, that is a fair argument on their part, and I respect that argument, but I do not respect an argument which simply does not square with the facts, because it does not.
Coming back to the motion before us, you will know that the UI program was originally designed in 1940 to promote the economic and social security of workers in Canada by providing them with an income protection from the time they left one job until they found another job. It was that period of time for which unemployment insurance was designed. It was meant to reflect the strict application of social insurance principles and social objectives. Although coverage has been gradually expanded, the adherence to social insurance principles was of prime continuing concern.
By the end of the 1950s 1 think most people would see the program as having been not only expanded, but generally being universally applied under those conditions or those provisions.
The 1960s was a period of greater legislative stability than the previous two decades. There were some changes made to the UI program as well during the 1960s, but they were in response to changes in earnings and living costs. At that time
Supply
already there was a clear indication and a clear sign of the dissatisfaction with the program, and so in the 1970s some fundamental changes to the program were brought in.
In 1971, as I have already indicated, the unemployment insurance program was amended to include two important principles. They are the coverage of all employees who were in insurable employment and also incorporated in this concept was the necessity that workers who suffer an interruption of earnings be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
It is in accordance with these two basic principles that it was determined that earnings arising from employment should be taken into consideration for unemployment insurance benefits. This, of course, was to prevent double-indemnification, which is a founding principle for all insurance schemes. That was the principle in 1971, and Members can go back to that debate and to the Bill to discover it.
The unemployment insurance program, it must be remembered, is not a savings plan, but rather it was to be an insurance plan. I must point out that unemployment insurance coverage should not be dependent upon an individual's likelihood of collecting benefits. I go back to the time when some of us were not in the House in 1971 and the changes that were made. I remember myself being active then in various teachers' organizations. We made the point at the time that we should not be included in the unemployment insurance program as the changes were being made. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) probably remembers that period as well.
We made the point that it was highly unlikely that that group of people would collect unemployment insurance, and the question that obviously followed then was, if we do not collect or are not eligible to collect-because we were not eligible to collect under the agreement with school divisions- why should we then have to pay the unemployment insurance premiums? One of the arguments that was made was that it is a universal plan, you do not know if you will be unemployed at some future point in time, which theoretically is correct. Second, because you were in the labour force you had to contribute to the risk, you had to broaden the base of the risk, and yes, there would be groups and professions in society who would have a lesser likelihood of collecting unemployment insurance, but that did not obviate their obligation to pay into the fund. That was a general insurance principle which was implemented at the time.
What is interesting is to take a look at whether or not that theory, in fact, has been borne out. I do not have the last figures, for example, for the teaching profession, but I do know there was a period of time when a number of people in that profession, as its numbers were being contracted as schools were being reduced because of a reduction in the number of children in school, took new training other than in their profession and were on unemployment insurance and, in fact, collected.
Some people made the argument during the mid-1970s, for example, that group would contribute to the general fund for

March 20, 1986
Supply
unemployment insurance and that there would be a net benefit to the fund from that larger group. That did not happen, whether or not actuarially that can be proven, I am not here to argue the point. What 1 am saying is that, regardless of what happened in 1971 in terms of what much of it, I believe, was good intention in terms of a discussion of the Bill, in fact, what we saw in practice in the 1970s, as unemployment rose and as demographic changes took place in Canadian society, is that some of the arguments that had been made in 1970-1971 to sell the Bill, in fact, did not find their way into actual fact as we took a look at the implementation of the Bill itself.
It is important here to note that, yes, there were people at that time who were drawn into the unemployment insurance plan who previously had not been in the old plan, and who said very clearly that it was very unlikely they would collect any benefits from it. I must point out that unemployment insurance coverage should not be dependent upon an individual's likelihood of collecting benefits. That was the principle. Instead, UI is to be viewed as a pooled risk. Thus while the amount of certain individuals' pensions may reduce the amount of benefits to which they are entitled or may even preclude them from receiving UI benefits, they had been protected against the contingency of an interruption in their earnings during the whole time they paid contributions to the unemployment insurance program. It is essentially this protection that their contributions covered. I think that principle we understand, even though sometimes, as I said, it caught people in the net who earlier had not been in the net and might not have wanted to get caught under the changes of 1971.
Nonetheless, it is important to remember that, while collecting unemployment insurance benefits, workers who are unemployed can receive earnings of up to 25 per cent of their weekly benefit rates without those earnings affecting the UI benefits paid in any week of unemployment. As pensions are included under this 25 per cent rule, those with modest pensions will continue to be eligible for UI benefits thus not depriving unemployed workers of much needed basic UI support. Therefore, only those pensioners who receive a substantial pension, exceeding even the maximum amount of unemployment insurance benefits payable, may be precluded from receiving UI benefits when they retire.
I think an equally important issue in this regard is that in addition to providing universal coverage to all Canadian workers the UI program must remain affordable to the taxpayer contributing either through premiums or through taxation itself. That is a principle as well that we should not forget. The Government feels that a claimant with an income from employment should not be treated in the same way as a claimant who has no income when it comes to determining eligibility to unemployment insurance benefits and the amount that should be paid. I do not think we can abrogate our responsibilities for the control of the UI funds by paying benefits to those who do not have an interruption of earnings.
We have to make one or two other points on the motion we have before us today. The Government, in its last 18 months, has brought forward other plans as well for people exactly in
that age group. For instance, the Canadian Jobs Strategy ensures that federal resources are used effectively to bring direct assistance to those most in need. The re-entry option, for example, is helping many older women who may require career counselling and instruction in job search techniques or skills upgrading.
The Skill Investment Program is also helping older workers to plan for change in advance. They can train for the future before their existing skills become obsolete.
The Community Futures Program will also benefit many older workers in communities across Canada-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to be difficult but there are a number of Members on both sides of the House who want to take advantage of the new spirit and rules to discuss the issue which has specifically been placed before the House by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
I have been listening patiently to the Minister and have heard absolutely no mention of the provisions of unemployment insurance income.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but that is not a point of order. The Minister has a couple of minutes in which to finish his comments.
If the Hon. Member wants to know the difference between a point of order and debate, she can come to my chamber later. 1 would like to discuss it with her.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would be very happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Community Futures Program will also benefit many older workers in communities across Canada experiencing economic decline, chronic unemployment or plant closures about which we have heard so much.
Not only has the Minister of Employment and Immigration acted in these areas to help older workers, she is most conscious of the changes that are referred to in the motion before us today.
The two principles upon which the Minister has worked are the universal payment of premiums and that a person with no employment income or no job has been and will remain eligible.
The Minister stated that the notice of change was given well in advance. In fact, the notice of change was highlighted in the statement of November 8, 1984. It was given again in a press release on December 21, 1984.
It was stated a few minutes ago that the average Canadian who might be affected by this provision was not aware of this change. In March, 1985, the Minister sent some 650,000 letters to all employers participating in unemployment insurance to explain the provisions.
March 20, 1986

Finally, let me repeat that this question has been referred to the Forget Commission. The Minister has discussed it with the Chairman of the Commission, and although this does not fall directly within my ministerial responsibilities, I have had an opportunity to discuss this issue personally with the Commissioner as well. I know that he is sensitive to the issue and will consider it when making recommendations on the general approach to unemployment insurance and how it can be improved.
I suggest that the Minister has thoroughly informed Members of her approach concerning the recommendations which she will follow once they are given.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister is from Manitoba he will no doubt be familiar with the specific case of Rudolph Lange. This was, in fact, a test case in which the Board of Referees decided that the Government's action to interpret the use of pension and severance benefits as income was a violation of the law. The board ruled in favour of Mr. Lange. In the meantime, the Government has decided to appeal that decision and no money has been given to Mr. Lange. Why is the Government appealing that decision?
Second, does the Minister not believe that Mr. Lange should get his money in the interim, because it has been rightfully awarded to him in a favourable decision by the Board of Referees?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the specific case but I can give the Hon. Member the general principle. The first step is that the Board of Referees has made a decision in favour of the person whom she has mentioned. That decision has been appealed and, being before the courts, is sub judice. I believe she recognizes that no decision will be rendered from here until all steps and decisions affecting both parties have been taken.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness that I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). 1 thought there would be a new era and a new atmosphere in this place as a result of our approval of the reform and new rules introduced by the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). One of the changes is that Opposition Day motions such as this one could be voted on freely, without involving confidence in the Government. It was in that spirit that I brought this motion forward.
What we have heard is the Party line being laid down by the front benches of the Conservative caucus. I was prepared to be a little conciliatory, but it seems that they have drawn the line and it is down the middle of that aisle. I appeal to those Members opposite who have a conscience about this matter, and I want to ask the Minister specifically-


Mr. Mayer:: What a windbag.


John R. Rodriguez: Why don't you go back to sleep? Why don't you get up and make a speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.
Supply


Charles James Mayer: Why don't you open your eyes and stop trying to suck and blow at the same time?


Raymond John Skelly: When did you wake up?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 hope the Hon. Member has a question.


John R. Rodriguez: When teachers and Armed Forces personnel were included in the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1971, the Minister recalled the debate which took place with teachers and others who did not want to be included in that Act. Yet the Government announced in November, 1984, that this change to the UI provisions would be made by regulation. The Act was changed by cabinet fiat with no opportunity for a Bill to go through the House with the proper consultative process that it would allow.
1 believe that rather than changing the Act by one announcement in November, 1984, the Government should have referred the issue of pensions and the issue of severance and holiday pay to the Forget Commission which was set up in the spring of 1985. Canadians could have had an input into that commission, a report could have been made to the Government and the appropriate changes could take place. 1 suggest that this would be the proper way to review the program. Does the Minister agree that this would be the proper procedure and, if so, will his colleagues support the motion before the House today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt talks about a new spirit. I appreciate his recognition of that new spirit and I am sure that his response was given in that new spirit as well.
The Government made a decision and announced it through legitimate means. The Government has both the right and responsibility to make those changes, and they were announced on three separate occasions as well as in response to innumerable questions in the House. The Hon. Member asked a number of those questions.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration and 1 have given the Hon. Member the assurance that the Forget Commission has been given every opportunity to examine this part of the Act as well as others.
The decision of the Government stands and, as a member of the Government, 1 have reiterated it for him today.
I appreciate the Hon Member's motion and his intent, but I am saying to him that the decision of the Government stands until the Forget Commission comes back with its report.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister say in his address that EPF funding has not been cut. In the Charlottetown Guardian on March 10, 1986, the Minister of Health and Social Services of Prince Edward Island, Mr. Fogarty, is quoted as saying that the Province of Prince Edward Island will get $11 million less than it originally anticipated over the next five years under the EPF formula.

March 20, 1986
Supply
Could the Minister clarify that, because there seems to be a tremendous misconception about EPF funding? The Government is saying there are no cuts and the provinces and departments within provinces are saying, yes, indeed there are cuts.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Elon. Member's question. 1 know that as a former Member of a provincial administration he asks that question both legitimately and seriously. 1 do not know whether the Hon. Member was here at the time I gave an explanation, but I believe two points have to be made on the question of EPF. I believe Mr. Fogarty has looked at the last five years, the formula which just ended, and projected as if that formula had stayed in place over the next five years to 1990-91. Mr. Fogarty, when he makes the point, anticipated-and I think the key word is "anticipated"-the formula as if there had been no change. Again, I am not necessarily trying to be partisan, but I believe the Hon. Member will know that formula changes were made in the previous administration as well in view of the financial realities. Over the next five years, in Bill C-90, for example, there will be an actual increase in the amount of money the provinces will receive under the BLOC funding, the BLOC formula, which includes the federal Government's share of health care and post-secondary education.
During the last five years, about $65 billion was transferred from federal coffers to provincial coffers for those two programs, and it is projected under the new Bill that approximately $90 billion will be transferred in the next five years. It is obviously a substantial increase.


Sheila Maureen Copps: There has been a decrease. You are misleading the House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 am not misleading the House, and 1 wish the Hon. Member could see the point-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are absolutely misleading the House. There has been a decrease in the increase of transfer payments.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If the Hon. Member wants to start to make a speech, I wish she would at least make a speech which is both intelligible and true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, tell the truth.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I am saying to the Hon. Member is that when the provinces made that point-such as was done by Mr. Fogarty-on something alleged or anticipated, it was on the old formula. The new formula does in fact have increases. It is not a cut of the previous amount of money they received. In fact, it is an increase.
I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, if she had any brains in her head, would understand that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You don't know how to count, that's your problem.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware of the concerns-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ask the Government of Manitoba what it thinks about your figures. At least tell the truth.


Alan Redway: I wonder if I could have order, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I cannot seem to hear anyone talking in this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member please ask his question.


Alan Redway: I can understand that. I have been trying to talk and I can understand why you cannot hear me talking, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister is aware of the concerns of a great many Government supporters concerning the treatment of pension income as income for the purposes of unemployment insurance benefits. I know that he and other Ministers share that concern. I was interested to hear his comments relating to the Forget Commission. Of course, Government Membersare relying on the fact that the Forget Commission is reviewing this matter and that the Government has committed itself to act in the light of those recommendations. Since the Minister appeared before the Forget Commission-I understood from his comments that he had been in touch with it-could he tell us today exactly when we can expect to have a report from the Forget Commission. Of course, Government Members are reexpeditiously?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify for the Hon. Member that I did not appear before the Forget Commission.


John V. Nunziata: Why didn't you?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I did have a private discussion with Mr. Forget on this issue. I personally asked, as one Member of Cabinet and of the Government that he look at it expeditiously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired. We are over the time now by a minute and a half because of the few interjections.


John V. Nunziata: With unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, not this time.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for placing before the House what is probably the first resolution that can demonstrate that parliamentary reform can work.
I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) illustrated the problem very succinctly this afternoon. We have argued for the entire day, rationally, intelligently and without rancour, a motion to have this House urge the Government to withdraw an offending regulation. Government Mem-
March 20, 1986

bers have heard our case. I am under the impression that all Liberals will support this motion. The New Democrats will vote for it. I suspect that some Government Members will weigh in their minds what the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as the representative of the Government, had to say today and they will weigh what the Liberals and the New Democrats have said. They will weigh in their minds the letter of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), the contents of the letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to that same Minister asking for modification of the offending regulation, and they will weigh what has been said within the Conservative caucus, I assume, by Members of Parliament on the Government side who have been listening to their constituents.
I would point out that the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), a Conservative Member for a long time, has the interests of the Armed Forces at heart. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton) also represents an area with a very large military area establishment, and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) has in his riding a military establishment at Nanoose. They must have been listening to their constituents. I am sure Hon. Members have listened to retired people from the Armed Forces, the RCMP and, indeed, the many other people who have been left out of the protection of unemployment insurance by this offending regulation.
1 know Government Members are evaluating all this. They are under tremendous pressure from their constituents. They know what is fair and what is not fair. And even some of the most prominent members of their own Government have asked that this be changed. This is the essence of parliamentary reform. I do not envy the Government Members. They have two choices. They can support their constituents and fulfil their responsibility for which they were sent to this House, or they can toe the Government line.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that the Government has the right and the responsibility to make decisions and to carry out those decisions. He said: "We have made a decision on this and we will carry it out". I might remind him, however, that the same statement was made in the House week after week with respect to Old Age Security deindexing until the "grey panthers" of this country rose up in such numbers that the Government realized it would be shot into oblivion if it followed through on that ill-conceived decision.
1 would point out to Conservative Members here today that they have a right to vote and they have a responsibility to support their constituents. They must make the judgment with respect to whether or not this move is fair. Indeed, we have made the argument that it is not fair. In fact, there was no consultation. It was simply done in the dark of night in some black cabinet meeting where Ministers decided, without proper guidance and input from their back-benchers with respect to the effect of such a move. Now that the decision has been brought forward in the light of day, constituents have had a
Supply
chance to look at it. People see that they will be adversely affected by it and they say that it is a mistake.
The very softly worded resolution which would change this mistake is before the House today. I would again congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, for identifying this issue which allows an opportunity to Members of the House to vote on it. I think Government Members have not only to weigh the merits of the issue today, they must keep in mind that parliamentary reform is riding on it. It is an extremely unfair move, one which is not only the subject of this Parliament but that of provincial legislatures which will consider the question. The question has been dealt with in the Nova Scotia Legislature. A resolution was put forward from there to the Government of Canada stating that it is wrong and that it should be reconsidered. The British Columbia Legislature will soon have an opportunity to consider a motion such as the one which is before us. Since there are many British Columbians who will be adversely affected by it, I suspect they, too, will judge that it is a mistake. I believe they, too, will send a clear message to Ottawa stating that a mistake has been made. If there is such an unanimous decision reached in the British Columbia Legislature, then I think the Government in Ottawa must re-examine the issue. It would be a mistake for Conservative back-benchers, who must judge the issue and explain it to their constituents, not to support the motion today.
What does the motion ask? It asks that a mistake which has been made be corrected. It is a mistake which withdraws unemployment insuance benefits through the mechanism of declaring severance pay and pensions as income, thereby prohibiting the opportunity to collect unemployment insurance. This is something for which they have paid and which many people before them have had the opportunity to collect. Even today others who find themselves in a slightly different position in relation to the law are still collecting benefits. Examples of that have been put forward to the House. This is a measure which must be changed. The only way it can be changed is for government Members to support the motion. There is no shame in showing such support. I ask Hon. Members at what time they will accept the problem of parliamentary reform. There is no shame in acknowledging that a mistake has been made. The Government's position with respect to Old Age Security illustrates that point. There is no great political difficulty in saying that, perhaps, we should re-examine this particular problem, rectify it and recover the public revenue from other sources more capable of paying. Government Members will have to make this judgment.
The Forget Commission has been referred to many times in an attempt to get out from under the problem. Government Members realize they are in great difficulty with respect to this decision. They seem to say: "Let the Forget Commission report on it". The commission will likely come back with an optimistic view in the fall of 1986. By that time many thousands of Canadians will have lost their unemployment insurance as a result of this mechanism. It can be rectified right

March 20, 1986
Supply
now. It can be rectified with very little dislocation to the Government since most of those who have lost their benefits are still in the appeal process. Indeed, boards of referees across the country are somewhat confused in terms of this matter. Some of them are handing down decisions which deny appeals while others are upholding them. For example, some 20-odd appeals have been upheld in Nanaimo. The process will be carried on to umpires. I imagine that at some point in time the Supreme Court of Canada will be required to make a judgment on it.
This regulation of the Government is unfair. It may even be illegal. It will generate enormous political heat because of its unfairness. Would it not be more simple for the Government to say that it will restore the rights removed and wait for the report of the Forget Commission? Would it not be better for the Government to say that it will develop recommendations from the report for Parliament and let Parliament make the decision as to which way we should go on this issue? That is the correct way to proceed. Again, I emphasize that there is no problem in suggesting that in the application of the regulation we have a problem. That problem can be rectified by withdrawing the regulation, restoring the benefits to the individuals involved and moving on.
I now wish to refer to a number of special cases. The first deals with members of the Armed Forces. In the constituency I represent I have an Armed Forces station at Holberg and there is another at Comox. There are thousands of people who have retired from the Armed Forces who have moved into the area. I estimate we are talking of something in the order of 6,000 people who are extremely upset as a result of the Government's actions. They are upset because of the unfairness of the move. As has been pointed out previously, members of the Armed Forces contribute through premiums to the Unemployment Insurance Program even though they can now never collect. That is unfair. Members of the Armed Forces are put out of the Armed Forces. They do not have a choice with respect to whether or not they are retired. They are put out and that is it. Therefore, because of that particular situation I think it is incumbent upon Parliament to make sure that they are entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits in order to make the transition. Most members of the Armed Forces who retire do so at a time of life when the transition is extremely difficult and expensive to make. Their children are almost grown and they are usually eating them out of house and home. They are very expensive to clothe. The parents are looking at post-secondary education, whether it be vocational training, university or technical schools. These institutions are not found in close proximity to the areas which I represent. Children of the people in Comox who need to get to postsecondary institutions must travel long distances. They must board out. Their costs are much higher than those of other Canadians. The point I am making is that the House should seriously consider this situation and vote together on it in order to restore those benefits. In this way we can make the adjustment for the people a little more humane. Those people who are told that they must leave their jobs will at least know that
there will be some security provided through unemployment insurance benefits.
Another aspect of the situation is that in planning pension income the unemployment insurance adjustment period is determined in the development of that for an appropriate level of pension. To withdraw it part way through the game is to do an enormous disservice to those people who have contributed and who have served their country. Through no fault of their own they lose their employment and have to go through a very severe financial adjustment. I am certain that all Members of the House feel that a redress should be made for those individuals. It would only be a misguided response to the Government's line which says: "Since you are members of the Government, you cannot vote in favour of this motion". In the spirit of parliamentary reform, members of the Government should be supportive of such a move in the form of the resolution before us today.
There is another issue which involves retired members of the Armed Forces. These people receive small pensions. To try to deal with the latter years of family life, in terms of children leaving home, purchasing new homes and trying to establish themselves in new employment, many of these people must take part-time jobs which pay the minimum wage. They are still required to pay unemployment insurance. When they become ill they cannot collect sick benefits. They cannot collect unemployment insurance when they pick up seasonal work. This is grossly unfair. We should provide individuals at that time of life with some security, and unemployment insurance was a satisfactory mechanism for doing that. It was fair, and it was a mistake to remove it.
The Government has attacked the Armed Forces, the RCMP and the Public Service on another front. When will the Government stop the attack? There was a proposal in the same recommendations of the Conservative Government to deindex the pensions of members of the Armed Forces down to the level of inflation. It is a mistake. Even the previous Government is not without fault here. When inflation rates were running at the 14 per cent level, it felt that an appropriate level of indexation would be down around the 6 per cent and 5 per cent levels. That was absolutely wrong. Those people on small pensions, who earned their qualification when the salaries of the Armed Forces were much lower, were seriously harmed and will probably never catch up on their pensions because of that attack on their pension income. If the Government compounds its mistake of denying unemployment insurance benefits to those members of the Armed Forces who are retiring by deindexing their pensions, a grievous insult would be inflicted on Canadians, and I do not think they will sit down and take it. Indeed, we in the New Democratic Party intend to support them to the fullest, to win back the benefits they have lost and to preserve the ones they have today.
My counterpart in the Comox constituency, Karen Sanford, will be raising this matter in the provincial Legislature of British Columbia. I would be very surprised if both sides of
March 20, 1986

that House did not indicate to the Government of Canada that it made a mistake and request it to make that change. Karen Sanford will be raising that matter on behalf of her constituents, and the Government Members in this House should be raising it on behalf of their constituents as well.
Earlier today a Government Member mentioned that he could not support it because generals would be collecting unemployment insurance. I hope the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) made that comment tongue in cheek. He knows that there are thousands and thousands of non-commissioned officers who are in very serious financial situations because of what the Government has done to date. Because of one or two individuals, the Member would stop this measure from being retracted or removed so that the vast majority of affected people would be allowed to benefit from a program from which the Government intended them to benefit in order to solve their problems. It is a matter of serious concern. We share the concern about certain individuals with extremely high incomes being entitled to this benefit, but we will certainly not harm thousands and thousands of people because of the odd one who slips through. I hope that Hon. Member will in fact vote with us. I know he has many members of the Armed Forces in his area. Also I know that he is concerned about their welfare and recognizes with some apprehension the kind of harm which this measure could cause.
I should like to refer to another area of concern, there are so many. The Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that he had been a teacher in another life; I too was a teacher in another life. I know that it is a demanding profession. After a certain number of years, some teachers feel that they have made a significant contribution and would like to change fields. They opt for early retirement; they take a diminished pension. There is assistance from the unemployment insurance fund to make that transition. The nice thing about it is that someone else comes into the profession behind them. One comes off unemployment insurance while the other goes on it to make the transition into another occupation or another area of contribution. The net effect on the Government of Canada is zero. However, a young person is working and a senior person is retiring or moving into another area after having opted for a much lower pension. It would be deemed fair by most Canadians to say that that is a rational use of public funds-to allow more young people to obtain work and to allow older people who have made their contribution to retire or move into another area in which they would like to make a contribution, possibly at a much lower salary. That use of early retirement is very valid. Teachers are being discouraged from taking early retirement because of the unemployment insurance regulation which cuts the opportunity to make a transition with some dignity and with some financial stability; they are facing the same situation. The list of groups affected unfairly by this goes on and on. They were not consulted. The rules were changed on them part way through the game. All their plans were in place, and suddenly those plans went down the drain because the Government changed the regulation. It is grossly unfair; it is unwise.
Supply
Today we in the House have an opportunity to kick off parliamentary reform in a very meaningful way. Government Members can judge the merits of the arguments put by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and by those many Government Members who represent ridings in which there are large populations of retired members of the Armed Forces. They can weigh those arguments along with what their constituents and other individuals who will be affected have said. Also they can weigh what was said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope he re-evaluates his position on this particular matter. We as a Parliament could remove that offending regulation, replace those benefits which were taken away, and basically wait for the results of the Forget Commission to look at what should be done in a global and planned way to the unemployment insurance fund. That makes sense, and that ends my presentation this afternoon.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). I would like to make a comment and then ask him a question. I want to make it clear, though, to the Member and to other Members of the House that this is not a case of opposition to the principle of providing unemployment insurance benefits to deserving people. This is the debate of a motion before the House. While the motion might be acceptable in some ways, it is the role of the Hon. Members to point out its deficiencies, and that is what I want to do in making a comment.
I will not even mention the fact that this matter has been before the House of Commons since November, 1984. I will not even mention the fact that there have been supply periods and Opposition Days galore between that date and today, March 20, 1986. I will not mention the fact that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) could have raised this matter on numerous occasions when it was not cast in stone, when no action had been taken, and when all Members could have voted freely on the matter. He waited until it had become a fait accompli, until the action had been taken. Now he comes, after the horse has been stolen, and asks us to lock the barn door and participate in that process.
I want to tell him, very briefly, what is the matter with the process and with the resolution which he brought forward for those of us who support the fight of early retirees and recognize that there are people who need unemployment insurance benefits in addition to their pension income. Let me tell him what is wrong. He is opening the door completely wide. He is letting in the President of the Bank of Montreal, executives across the country, generals and so on. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River said that it would only be one or two generals. Let him produce the statistics and tell us how many people with incomes of $40,000 and more will benefit if this change were made today in the House of Commons. We are not here to protect bank executives. We are not here to protect those people who have earned a living over a 30-35 year working period and have retired at age 65 and want unemployment for a year after retirement. That is not the purpose of the

March 20, 1986
Supply
fund. The purpose of the fund is to aid those people who need that income because they have lost their employment, not superannuates who are 65 years of age, not retired generals, not retired bank executives and so on. If the Hon. Member does not understand that and he cannot present that case to the House of Commons, no wonder he will lose; no wonder the motion will be voted down. They have not adopted the process.
I will not ask the Hon. Member why this matter was not raised a month ago or six months ago, before action was taken. What proposal does the Hon. Member have to pay for this? Almost $12 billion was spent on unemployment insurance in 1985. The income to the fund was in the area of $8 billion. There was a $4 billion deficit. He is saying right in this House of Commons today: "Pay the generals unemployment insurance. Pay the bank executive". Who is going to pay for that? The taxpayers of Canada? That will add to the deficit. Is the Hon. Member asking us to direct the taxpayers of Canada to pay that money?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there are three points which the Hon. Member for Halifax West has made. I hope that there is sufficient time for him to reconsider his position. First, the President of the Bank of Montreal-and I know this for a fact-has organized his affairs in such a way that he will be drawing his pension so that he will be able to collect unemployment insurance plus his pension income.
I have spoken with several generals in the Armed Forces who have arranged deferrals in their pensions and are drawing out RRSPs in such a way that they will be able to collect unemployment insurance, even though the corporals and the enlisted ranks will not be able to collect it. That is the basic unfairness which the Member's Government has put in place. It is a situation where generals and the President of the Bank of Montreal can still collect unemployment insurance while the corporals and the master warrant officers, the group who needs the money, cannot have it. That is the gross unfairness of the Government's position. It is my hope that the Hon. Member will reconsider his position.
The second point the Member made was that the barn door is already closed. It is not already closed. Virtually all of these cases are now in appeal before the Board of Referees. Some cases have been heard. There are 25 of them in Nanaimo in which the Board of Referees says that it is wrong, pay them. Now the Government is appealing. It is not too late to change.
Even though the Hon. Member for Halifax West is against members of the Armed Forces and other people from collecting unemployment insurance, many of the Members on the other side may have weighed his remarks and said, "I do not agree with that. I am going to vote on the side of fairness. I am going to vote for the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt's position. He should withdraw this offending regulation and restore benefits to the people who justly need them".


Kenneth Albert James: First, I have a comment and then I will ask a question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).
The Unemployment Insurance Program was not designed to become a second income. It was to be the first payer. If a claimant received money from some other source, then that money was deducted. If a person had a job in a restaurant and worked as a waitress for a time, an amount was deducted from the claim.
It appeared very unfair to me if a pensioner did not have his UI deducted. Costs have escalated. The Hon. Member has been here a good long time. He would know that in 1983 the deficit in the UI account increased to $4 billion from $2.4 billion in 1981. Much of this increase occurred because of the add-ons that took place.
I am concerned about the speeches that have been made about the changes which the Government has made, because somebody else is paying. I was in small business and still own a small business. The worker, the employer and the Government pay. When the Government has nothing more than the workers or the employers, where does the Member thinks all this money comes from?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, first we are talking in the order of $30 million annually that is being saved. On the scale of the UI pay-out, that is minimal, but the hardship is very real and hard. It is unfair to allow this to go on for a period of time. The express intent in previous legislation was to create a situation to help people through the transition.
It is unfair to change that by regulation and not in the context of what we are going to do with the unemployment insurance legislation. I would hope the Hon. Member would see that. I would hope he would see that what has come to pass is unfair.
He diverted the conversation into an area that is very near and dear to my heart. When the UI account went so badly into deficit, this country went through almost the worst recession it has ever had. We helped an enormous number of people by having that unemployment insurance. If the Member was in small business, he would know that in my area of the country thousands and thousands of small business people benefited. During that period of income loss, the unemployment insurance fund was there to pick up that loss. It not only kept workers going but it kept small businesses going and the people they employ. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that the small business sector did not, through that recession, benefit profoundly.
There are areas of that unemployment insurance fund where we should be paying unemployment insurance to small businesses. I have had hundreds of contractors coming in to me over a period of time saying to me "My God, if they are laid off in the pulp mill they will get unemployment insurance-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt but the Hon. Member's time has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
March 20, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to question a few Conservative Members of Parliament. We know that today is the day we get a chance to test out the much trumpeted new rules. We also know there is a growing dissatisfaction among some Conservative Members of Parliament about the Government's cruel and unjust decision to include severance pay, vacation and pension benefit as income for the purpose of unemployment insurance.
A number of Conservative Members are pulling the wool over the eyes of the public. I look, for example, to The Daily Gleaner. The progressive Conservative women-and 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in every Party the women are the most progressive-passed a resolution saying the unemployment insurance changes were unfair. Not only did they pass a resolution but they organized a meeting, and over 500 people packed the hall, including the MP for the area. The MP was in total agreement with the stand taken against the change in UIC pension policy. He further stated that the petition circulated was now on the desk of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Where is the Member of Parliament for that area at the moment? Where is the Member of Parliament who did not even have the courage to come to the House today to speak on this issue?


Mr. Malone:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is the Member representing Gagetown in so cowardly a way that he does not come into the House?


Arnold John Malone: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He promised to fight for the issue, but he is not here.
I would like to ask why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tried to slough off the question I asked him as it related to a specific case in the City of Winnipeg.
I received a call today from The Winnipeg Free Press asking me why 1 was interested in raising this case when not a Progressive Conservative Member from the Province of Manitoba was prepared to fight for the rights of an individual constituent who had a positive finding from the Board of Referees. I was further asked what the Government is doing. Its Members are failing to speak out on this issue. 1 hope they will be here at 5.45 p.m. to vote with the Opposition on this important issue. Why is the Government silent when Armed Forces personnel brass are intimidating members of the Armed Forces to stop them from signing petitions against this measure?
I have information that the brass in the Armed Forces have contacted individuals at the local bases advising them not to sign petitions against this measure. Again, we see they are trying to cut off debate, the very lifeline, not only of members of the Armed Forces but of other individuals who have been hurt by this measure.
We heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare talk about how they were not prepared to move on this issue because they were waiting for the Forget Commission Report.
Supply
1 can give you chapter, verse and example of people who have already had to put their homes up for sale in Canada because of this measure, Mr. Speaker. If you are 58, 59 or 60 years of age and you are on an early pension, it is not enough to help you survive. If you happen to be raising a family, there is no way you can make mortgage payments. I can show you that this particular measure has driven people of Canada out onto the streets. It is a real shame that the Members on the Government side of the House do not demand that, at least in the interim until the results of the Forget Commission are known, the Government roll back this cruel, unjust and unfair legislation. If they do not, they will pay the political price.
This issue will not topple the Government today or next week, but it will fester. When organizations like the Oromocto P.C. Women's Association are challenging the Government on this issue, and suggesting that they are prepared to take their fight to the Canadian Human Rights Commission because they believe it is a violation of human rights, there is a pot of trouble brewing.
If the Government is interested, in the very least in listening to the responses of its own members, it should take heed and listen to the message of the women of Oromocto and, in particular, the women of the Progressive Conservative Association of Oromocto who have taken this issue on as their cause. They realize that the time when a person is being dislocated and forced into retirement by the Armed Forces, or dislocated from a job, is the time when they can least afford to pay the price for this change.
One of the Government Members said that the unemployment insurance scheme was intended to be applied to those people who have no income. The facts are that the unemployment insurance provisions were intended to be insurance against loss of a job. As was so ably pointed out by one of my colleagues, this particular measure strikes primarily at working poor and blue collar workers.
If you are an investment money manager who happens to have purchased a private money plan and have a self-directed RRSP, you are exempted from these provisions. When the Government instituted this unfair and cruel tax on the middle-income and poor people, it sent a little notice out with the first cheque on January 5 saying that if you have a private RRSP you are exempt. It is all right if you know how to move your money around, if you have become a landlord, and have investment income from other sources.
Through this particular measure the Government is turning unemployment insurance benefits into a welfare scheme. It is turning unemployment insurance benefits into a means-tested scheme, particularly for those salaried employees who are the middle and lower-income earners in the country. The measures quite clearly do not affect the self-employed and those who have their own private money purchase plans, but they affect those people who may have a small pension.
I can give you names of hundreds of individuals who have contacted my office. For example, Peter Benczi finds himself,

March 20, 1986
Supply
through no fault of his own, out on the street. He filed an appeal with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and hopes it will rule in his favour. Unfortunately, if it does, it is highly likely that the Government will appeal the decision as it did in the case of the gentleman from Winnipeg to whom I referred earlier. He went to the Board of Referees which was established by the Government to determine who was right and who was wrong. He fought his case and won. He should have received his pay but, instead, the Government appealed it. The Government has the finances and resourcess to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court, but this particular gentleman does not have those resources. Why does the Government not pay him in a show of good faith? Why does the Government not, at the very least, in anticipation of the results of the Forget Commission, say that it will declare a moratorium on this unfair law, at least until it has heard what the Forget Commission has to say?
Unlike the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I made a presentation to the Forget Commission. The commissioners were extremely sympathetic, but said their hands were tied. They could not force the Government to make changes in the interim. They were looking at the over-all structure of the unemployment insurance scheme and would not be ready to report until at least the fall of 1986. In the meantime, hundreds of workers are losing their homes, being deprived of benefits, and having their human rights stripped from them simply because the Government fails to listen to people like the P.C. Women's Association of Oromocto.
I learned a lesson when 1 was a member of the Liberal Opposition in Ontario. At that time there was a Budget introduced by Marc Lalonde. He decided in his wisdom that he would start to declare workers' compensation benefits as income for the purpose of calculating the guaranteed income supplement. I disagreed with him and wrote to him at the time. As a result of that particular small change in the Budget, hundreds, if not thousands, of workers who had perhaps a very small worker's compensation pension as well as their old age pension, had their guaranteed income supplement cut back.
I wrote to Mr. Lalonde saying that this may not be the most earth-shattering measure in his Budget, but that it would stick in the craw of Canadians for a long time, when I travelled in my riding and spoke with injured workers, they asked why the Liberal Government took this measure. The issue passed unnoticed for the most part, but some of us expressed our concern by sending a message to the Liberal Government of the day. We said that we knew changes were needed, but asked that they not be taken out on the backs of the people who could least afford to pay. That includes people who have been forced into early retirement, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and who, in many cases, are looking for work but do not have a hope of finding another job.
Will you tell me that women and men who lose their jobs at the age of 59, 60, or 61 will have a chance for re-employment? Women come into my riding office who have been subject to lay-offs as a result of the closure of Allen Industries. One woman in particular who is 45 years of age is not eligible for
LAB benefits because her age and her 15 years of experience do not add up to the required 80 years. Therefore, she is looking for a job. Since she receives a small pension, she is being denied the right to collect unemployment insurance benefits.


Howard Edward Crosby: How small?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member asks how small. I will tell you how small. People are receiving pensions of $200 and $300 a month with which they are required to support families. It may be easy for us in this House to talk about it, but it is wrong for a person receiving a pension of $300, $400, or $500 a month to be denied unemployment insurance benefits. The Member shakes his head and says it is not wrong. 1 will table in this House the name of a man who has sold his home as a result of the changes which the Government has made in the Unemployment Insurance Commission. If the Member can guarantee me that that man should not have sold his home, that he was living high off the hog, I will withdraw my words and my position. I have received hundreds of letters on this issue, as have my colleagues, the Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pem-broke (Mr. Hopkins) and the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
[ Translation]
Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, this Bill affects the more destitute, people who are getting older, who are forced to quit working at age 55 or 60 and who will be penalized by the Government.
There is a second consideration on which I would rather not comment because there is not much time left. I would just like to say that this measure will create even more unemployment among young people because older workers will no longer choose to retire. If they cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits they will refuse to retire and this will not free jobs for younger Canadians. This Bill is just one more insult to Senator Hebert who is now fighting in the Senate for young people. I think that the Government and Hon. Members themselves should realize that their constituents will consider that as their personal and individual decision.

I urge government Members, in the spirit of the new rules, to vote with their consciences rather than just following the Party line.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment on the Member's remarks concerning eligibility for unemployment insurance of persons with pension income. I call to her attention that she said that with a pension of $200 or $300 or $400 a month, a person would be ineligible for unemployment insurance. I ask her to check with a UIC office and check the formula which applies and find out who is wrong on that point.
March 20, 1986

I also have a question for the Member. She does not seem to realize that this argument concerning eligibility has been waxing for 18 months. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, Members of provincial legislatures, and other public officials have pointed out time and time agin that the Government responded to the concerns expressed publicly by Members and others and referred the matter to the Forget Commission. They are coming to the post too late. Can they get that through their heads? The decision has already been made. The matter has been referred to the Forget Commission. I do not remember the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), and certainly not the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), appearing before the Forget Commission, as did the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and myself, and asking it to make a recommendation now. We asked it to file an interim report and send it to the Minister so that a decision could be made now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe we have four points of order. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on a point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member would not want to leave on the record anything that is misleading. He said I did not appear before the Forget
Commission.


An Hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Listen before you decide. I did appear before the commission, and here is a copy of the brief which I will send to the Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not consider that a point of order.
Is the Hon. Member ready to answer?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Unlike the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), my world does not revolve around Ottawa. If he had a chance to look at the hearing presentation for Friday, January 31, in the great City of Hamilton, he would have been aware that I made my presentation long before the travelling road show arrived in Ottawa.
He talks about people who are living off the fat of the land and getting pensions. Does he really think that the 9,577 widows and orphans who receive an average pension of $4,875 from the Canadian Armed Forces should not be allowed to receive unemployment insurance benefits to that amount? It is deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits. Does he feel these widows and orphans are living off the fat of the land? If he does, he is so out of touch that I am sure his electors will want to remind him of that in the next election.
Supply


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) could clarify this point. If I understand the Government's position, it is that anyone who was concerned about this issue should have raised it years ago. Many Members of this House have raised this issue in letters to the Minister and in questions in this House. Members have appeared before the Forget Commission to make these points. Certain Members of the Government are participating in the debate tonight, although not many of the thinking and clearsighted Members. They are saying that they are going to vote against this motion because we should have raised this issue some time ago. The fact that they are ignorant on this issue is not a reason to vote against the motion. Arguments have been made in this House today about the basic unfairness of this situation and the fact that the need for that transitional income is critical. Would the Hon. Member agree with that perception of the Government's role here today?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, who I know wants to speak on this issue but has not had a chance because Ministers have been ragging the puck on other issues, and others have been raising this issue ever since it was introduced in the Economic Statement in November, 1984. I have written letters and raised it in the House. I appeared before the Forget Commission. If government Members truly believe in the spirit of reform, then they will throw off their Party shackles and the notion that they are simply Party hacks or book-ends and vote as their individual conscience dictates. If they do, they will vote in favour of the widows, orphans, unemployed and older workers and against this cruel and unjust measure proposed by the Government.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the Hon. Member. She, like myself and all Members, particularly those on the government side, truly believe that the Forget Commission will provide us with very helpful recommendations in order to solve the entire problem. This problem has of course developed over many, many years, primarily during the time of the Government by the Party of which she is a supporter. However, like all of us, I understand she is truly concerned about those who might be suffering while we are awaiting the recommendations of the Forget Commission. I hope some Members of this House will calm down so she can hear me and I can hear what I am saying.
She has pointed out that she is aware of a number of individual cases where people have actually lost their home or are on the verge of it. She indicated she would be prepared to table that information. I would like to ask her if she would do that. Certainly all government Members would be most willing to be of assistance to anyone in that situation. We would be very eager to help to solve that sort of problem. Perhaps the Hon. Member would be kind enough to table names, addresses and other details so that members of the Government could be of help here, too.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am most happy with the spirit of goodwill expressed by the Hon. Member. However, unfortunately that same spirit has not been expressed by his Govern-


S0179-21 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
March 20, 1986
Supply
ment. In my speech I neglected to draw attention to the fact that the Armed Forces pensioners of this country wrote a letter to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) on the issue because they were very concerned about superannuation as well as their pensions. They got a reply from his sidekick, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre), who first wrote a very glowing letter thanking them for their concerns about pensions and saying that the Government would take them into consideration. Subsequently he threatened to take criminal action against them if they continued to use the name Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners' Association. He claimed that the use of the words "Canadian Armed Forces" was a violation of military law. If they did not revoke that name they would be court-martialled or, in the civil sense, subject to conviction under the Criminal Code, which could result in a $500 fine or six months in jail.
So you can understand that while I appreciate the goodwill of the Member sitting beside, me, it is unfortunate that that same goodwill has not been expressed by that very Minister whose responsibility it is to defend the rights of the people and of the Armed Forces. I think that this is a disgrace and that the Associate Minister of Defence should know better.
Mr. Speaker:: The time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate.
[ Translation]


Jean-Guy Hudon: I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate and to announce to the Opposition that I intend to vote against this motion, not because of party discipline but as a matter of principle, and because I believe that the Opposition has failed to provide sufficient grounds for this motion. Mr. Speaker, my stand on this particular matter, even if anyone threatens to tell it to the world-in any case, the debates in the House are public-my stand is as firm as the one I took when I announced in public that I was against all forms of indexation at any level whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I am 44 years old, l have never been on unemployment insurance and I hope to spend the rest of my life without drawing unemployment insurance benefits. The message we get depends on whom you talk to. We hear people saying when they are 35 or 40, and 1 say they are right: Mr. Hudon or Mr. so and so, I would rather have a job than draw unemployment insurance benefits, because there is nothing more humiliating and distressing for a man or a woman to draw unemployment insurance benefits. And 1 heartily agree.
And now, all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, one year before retirement, when they do have an income, it is no longer humiliating to draw unemployment insurance benefits, it is almost a right. And who are we talking about now? We are not talking about people in their thirties or forties, but about
the individual who leaves his job, either voluntarily or involuntarily, although in 95 per cent of the cases, at 64 or one year before retirement, it is voluntarily because the companies oblige them to retire early, supposedly in order to create jobs for young people, which are often subsidized by the Government. So we are talking about that kind of person.
They have been telling us from the start: They will lose everything. For a person to lose unemployment insurance benefits altogether, that person has to have earnings of at least $371 a week. This adds up to an annual income of $19,000. So this individual is already earning $19,000 a year. He is losing $15,000 in income, so if we add up $19,000 plus $15,000, we get $34,000 a year, and this is the same person who is forced to sell his home.
If you have to sell your home when your earnings are $34,000, either your payments are too large or your house is too expensive.
Mr. Speaker, $371 a week is the norm. And these are the people we are talking about today. We are not talking about people below the poverty line. I agree that $371 a week is not great, but it is certainly not nothing.
And who is more to be pitied, Mr. Speaker? The individual who has a weekly income of $371, plus unemployment insurance benefits, or the individual who is getting unemployment insurance benefits only, totalling $297 a month? Who is the worst off? And those are the people we are talking about today, Mr. Speaker.
So we are talking about someone who has a weekly income or $371 and who leaves his job and wants to receive unemployment insurance benefits on top of that because, Mr. Speaker, it is a right. We are not talking about people who have less than $371 a week. No! Today, we are not talking about people who work less than 15 hours a week. We are only talking about this particular group. And they say it is a crying shame.
Mr. Speaker, all the retired and early retired Canadians I have met, who say they are not entitled to unemployment insurance, are people who have a solid income. We are going to help the needy.
Mr. Speaker, 1 will begin by reading an article by Alain Dubuc in La Presse of March 26, 1986, the last paragraph where he comments on another program. He writes: "Finally, to be as prosaic one can be, this entire story . . ."-he is referring to Katimavik- "... properly depicts the federal Government financial predicament. It shows how one can build up a $30 billion deficit, and it explains why it is so difficult to make cut-backs."
Mr. Speaker, it has been described as an underhanded approach, as a recent decision which is inequitable, unfair, contradictory and illegal. I will attempt to set the record straight because I think such comments are undeserved.
March 20, 1986

On December 21, 1984, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) tabled in the House a document announcing changes in the unemployment insurance regulations. I will give you some background information which should be kept in mind.
On November 8 that same year, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) told the House there would be reductions, cut-backs, a new financial course. That is the day he said: "People drawing an income will no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits." At least, the income was to be considered as unemployment benefits, as income in terms of unemployment insurance. It was said that we were taking everybody by surprise.
I was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I even received from Members opposite-I will find those documents-letters stating that we were taking people by surprise. This was on November 8, 1984. We did not stand still between November 8 and December 21, 1984 because we thought perhaps we were taking people by surprise, so we would do something about it. Mr. Speaker, that is why on December 21, before everybody, including the old doctor, we tabled in the House a document stating that income from severance pay would be considered as unemployment insurance income as of April 1, 1985, and income from pension funds would be so considered as of January 1, 1986. That is where we are now! It was announced on December 21.
People have told us that the decision is recent. Naturally, it is recent, but it was announced on December 21, 1984. Members of the Opposition spoke about it at the time and there were articles in the newspapers. In addition, a letter from the Employment and Immigration Commissionners for employers and workers, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Chafe, was sent in March 1985 to 650,000 employers telling them that lump sums received as separation payment must now be considered an income for unemployment insurance purposes. It was also announced even then that, from January 1986, pension from employment would be taken into account for unemployment insurance purposes. This had already been announced, Mr. Speaker.
We are therefore saying that there was no secret. This was public knowledge, there were articles in the national newspapers and even negative comments, but one positive thing was said at the time, namely that the Government was changing one of its rules to make it more equitable and that it wanted to give everyone the right and the time to adjust to this change.
Mr. Speaker, we have been told that this is unequitable. I heard people say this morning that this change is unfair and 1 have also heard some people say: "I have paid the premiums and I am entitled to the benefits." For my part, I do not consider this a good argument.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance plan is an insurance and not a registered retirement plan. It is not a savings plan.
Mr. Speaker, unlike what was said this morning, when my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) said: Is it fair that someone who owns a triplex is not cut off, while someone receiving severance pay or retirement benefits is cut off? Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Act provides it must be income received from the employer with whom there was an employment relationship. It is not any kind of income. It may be true that this should be extended to cover all incomes, but I will leave it to my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Graces-Lachine East to apply that kind of formula. I can assure you he will have fun with it for a long while yet. Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance is not a savings plan and it is not a retirement plan. They say this is unfair. What exactly is unfair about it, Mr. Speaker? An individual draws $371 a week, and on top of that he wants to get $15,000 in unemployment benefits for a whole year? That is what injustice is! That is not fair, Mr. Speaker. As a Government Member I have to be fair and help people who really are in need, and the needy are not people who willingly choose to retire a year in advance. The needy are men and women of 40, 45 or 50 who lose their job at a critical time in their career and who still have to cope with the education of their children.
This morning somebody said it is a contradictory measure. There is nothing contradictory about it, Mr. Speaker. It was first announced on November 8, 1984, and again on December 21 that same year. We are now in 1986, so everybody has had time to prepare for this. I know it is discouraging. Mr. Speaker, our problem today is that people are indifferent, and I am sure the public and everybody else will agree on that. When we talk about something which will take place one year down the road, people say they are not concerned, they will cross the bridge if and when they get to it. Mr. Speaker, the public servants who apply the legislation and who were given those directives are just as indifferent because, under the previous administration, things would simply change according to various pressures, that was the case with respect to footwear quotas: they removed them for six months, only to re-instate them under pressure. Our problem today, Mr. Speaker is a problem of indifference. The people who claim there is a problem today are those who did not listen to their Member of Parliament and their Government, or did not read the major newspapers when those measures were announced. There is nothing illegal about this. Some have said that this rule is illegal, but it is not. The Unemployment Insurance Act provides that regulations can be established and the Government was good enough to announce this change one year in advance, just as it announced that the Budget proposals would come

March 20, 1986
Supply
into force not the next morning or the night of the Budget, but three, five or six months later,
Mr. Speaker, these are the people we are discussing today. We are talking about people who are not in need, whatever may have been said to the contrary. They are not wealthy, but they are not in need either.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the widows!


Jean-Guy Hudon: We are talking about people with incomes of at least $19,000 a year who want to add another $15,000 on top of that. As for me, I prefer to speak about people with an income of $15,000 or $20,000 a year. It is for those people that we must take action and do something. You can take this speech to my riding; I would not be afraid to repeat what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, when I voted and took a position against indexation, I did so publicly and I repeated what I had said in my riding, and if your only threat is to say that 1 am going to lose the next election, I shall still keep to my position. As for you, you propose nice things in the hope of winning the next elections, but you will always be in the Opposition. This is not what the Government wants. The Government and those who watch us want us to reduce the deficit, but you cannot reduce the deficit by thinking small. Is my time expired, Mr. Speaker?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) wanted to speak on the issue. Given that this is the first time we have tried the new procedure, I wonder if we could have the unanimous consent of the House to allow the debate to carry on.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will know that the matter is subject to a House order and, pursuant to Standing Order 82(9), the Chair is required to interrupt the proceedings at this time.
It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82(9). The question is the following one. Mr. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That this House recognizes the unnecessary hardship inflicted on older Canadian workers by the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which cause pension benefits to be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, and since votes on opposition motions are no longer considered a question of confidence in the Government, therefore urges the Government to repeal those changes immediately.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than jive Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. St-Julien:: Mr. Speaker, I shall abstain from voting on this motion. I am neither for nor against.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the welfare and good order of the House in the conduct of a vote. With full respect for the competence and beautiful conduct of the Clerks at the Table, when the voting
Supply
has ended of those either opposed or in favour of a motion, could there be a reasonable 10-second pause before the votes on the other side of the question are called? The Hon. Government House Leader rose so fast today that I thought he was voting with us.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have been certified sane; 1 would never do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 6.12 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, March 21, 1986