1987-06-09

[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, as Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Third Report of this Committee. In accordance with Standing Order 99(2), the Committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response within the next 150 days.
Mr. Speaker, the report recommends that a First Ministers' conference should be held next year on obstacles to minority language instruction in Canada. The report points out that most provincial legislatures have yet to conform to the provisions on minority language education rights in the Constitution.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present, commensurate with Standing Order 106, petitions from Kamloops, Penticton, Kelowna, Oliver, Smithers, Cranbrook, Surrey, Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, Lillooet, Victoria, Tofino and Port Coquitlam.
The petitioners are concerned about the increasing number of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides proven to have had deleterious effects on human health. The petitioners are also concerned that these chemicals produce short and longterm harmful effects on non-target organisms, soil and water. They feel that these chemicals have in past years been registered and approved as safe for various uses and that new chemicals are constantly being approved under the same guidelines as the new ones that have been proven deleterious.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides and the examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant derived pesticides.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
Another recommendation requests that the issue of the lack of post-secondary education in French outside Quebec be added to the agenda of the national forum on education scheduled for October in Saskatoon.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 124, 125 and 126.
Finally the report recommends that the Bill to amend the Official Languages Act-

be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Murphy: 1.	From January 1, 1986 to March 1, 1987, did the Cape Breton Development Corporation incur legal costs related to labour relations and, if so (a) what were they (b) what legal firms and lawyers represented the corporation in these cases?
2.	For the same period, was the corporation involved in any arbitration cases and, if so, what legal firms and lawyers represented the corporation in these cases?

June 9, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: 1. (a) From January 1, 1986 to March 1, 1987, the Cape Breton Development Corporation incurred legal costs for the following:
(i)	cases brought by various unions before the Canada Labour Relations Board seeking extension of representation rights for certain employee classifications: cost of $54,792.48;
(ii)	action brought by the Cape Breton Development Corporation with regard to illegal work stoppages: cost of $4,413.76;
(iii)	actions brought by the Cape Breton Development Corporation under Section 118 of the Canada Labour Code to cause consolidation of various bargaining units: cost of $9,084.08.
(b) In each of these actions, the Cape Breton Development Corporation was represented by the legal firm of Mclnnes, Cooper and Robertson.
2. Yes, and the Cape Breton Development Corporation was represented by the legal firm of Mclnnes, Cooper and Robertson.
Current international market conditions of coal oversupply and declining prices make further expansion plans not feasible at this time. A second access tunnel was completed at Donkin-Morien in February, 1987, and the tunnels will be maintained for future access as required. The high sulphur content will also make this coal resource quite difficult to market.
Substantial on-going capital funds of between $29 to $44 million will be invested in each of the next five years to maintain the operating capacity of the existing three collieries and other surface infrastructure.
Should market conditions improve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation could consider increasing the production capacity of its existing collieries or, in the longer-term, bringing another colliery into production such as Donkin-Morien.

[ Translation]



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Murphy: In 1986, was the Cape Breton Development Corporation able to meet all of its contractual commitments to supply coal and, if not, for what reason?


Michel Côté: During the fiscal year 1986/87, the Cape Breton Development Corporation was not able to meet 86,975 tonnes of contractual commitments due to the unavailability of the right quality coal. Geological conditions at the Lingan colliery were the main reason for this shortfall.
(in tonnes)
Thyssen Carbometals Co. (New York)
O.A. Mueller (Germany)
Contract Actual Shipment Shortage
150,000
100,543
49,457
120,000
92,482
27,518
In addition, the Cape Breton Development Corporation was unable to ship some 60,000 tonnes of coal to Ciment Independant du Quebec, which could not take the full contracted amount of 120,000 tonnes because of a strike at the cement plant.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-MINE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Murphy: For each of the next five years, what is the Cape Breton Development Corporation's plans for mine development?


Michel Côté: The Cape Breton Development Corporation plans to have three collieries operating during each of the next five years, these being: Lingan, Prince and Phalen, the latter which became operational in May, 1987.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 122 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 122 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ACTUARIAL VALUATIONS

Mr. Gauthier: 1.	From 1952 to the present (a) what has been the annual real rate of interest assumed in the actuarial valuations that have been carried out of the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA), the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) (b) what has been the basis of these assumptions (c) what have been the Financial consequences, in actuarial terms, of any changes made in the assumption of this factor?
2.	For the same years (a) what has been the annual real rate of salary increases resulting from salary revisions assumed in the actuarial valuations that have been carried out of the PSSA, CFSA and RCMPSA (b) what has been the basis of these assumptions (c) what have been the financial consequences, in actuarial terms, of any changes made in the assumption of this factor?
3.	For the same years (a) what has been the average of retirement assumed in the actuarial valuations that have been carried out of the PSSA (b) what has been the basis of these assumptions (c) what have been the financial consequences, in actuarial terms, of any changes made in the assumption of this factor?
4.	As of March 31, 1987, what is the actuarial surplus that would be realized by the PSSA, CFSA and RCMPSA if the assumption changes mentioned in Parts 1 to 3 had not been made?
Return tabled.
June 9, 1987


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[DOT] (mo)



WAYS AND MEANS


Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, a related Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, laid upon the Table on Friday, June 5, 1987, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, a related Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the first time and be printed.


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


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that: Bill C-50, An Act respecting the treatment of pension payments in determining certain unemployment insurance benefit entitlements and to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this morning on second reading of Bill C-50, which concerns amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
This Bill, which deals with pension income and separation payments for the purposes of unemployment insurance, contains three important amendments for the Canadian workers described therein.
Unemployment Insurance
As Hon. Members are aware, on April 5, 1987, new regulations regarding pension income and separation payments came into effect.
The first amendment contained in Bill C-50 will make the effect of the amendments concerning pensions retroactive to January 5, 1986.
Since January 5, 1986, pension income arising from employment, paid either in a lump sum or in regular payments, is considered to be remuneration for the purposes of unemployment insurance.
Bill C-50 will enable workers whose benefit period is based on subsequent employment, whether it started before or after January 5, 1986, to have their pension income arising from their previous employment no longer considered as earnings for the purposes of unemployment insurance.
Madam Speaker, this Government has always held the firm conviction that people who retire should not consider unemployment insurance as an additional source of income.
However, a distinction must be made between people who retire permanently and those who retire in order to start a new career. The amendments that came into effect on April 5, 1987, make that distinction. They ensure that individuals who retire and start a new career are treated fairly and equitably, since they continue to be part of the labour force.

This Bill will allow the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to apply the recent April 5 change on subsequent employment retroactively to January 5, 1986. It will allow for full UI benefits to be paid to claimants receiving a pension if their claim was based on employment obtained after the start of the pension.

The House will also be asked to consider another major amendment under which the eligibility of people who filed their unemployment insurance applications before January 5, 1986 would be assessed in accordance with the former regulations.
Hon. Members will recall that my December 5, 1986 statement had to do with the Government's conclusion that some people claimed they had been given inaccurate information about the implementation of the January 5, 1986 pension income provisions. To ensure fairness in the application of the January 5 measures, this Bill makes a clear distinction with respect to pension income handling before or after the January 5 legislative provisions.
The rule is very simple: the eligibility of all those who applied for unemployment insurance benefits before January 5, 1986-those who filed their application when the old regulations were in effect-will be determined on the basis of the old regulations. In each case the workers involved will receive from the UIC a refund equal to the deductions made with respect to their pension income.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance

The last change which is included in Bill C-50 aims at maintaining the right to benefits for those claimants whose separation payments have delayed the start of a claim for UI. Under the present regulations, separation payments can delay the start of a claim and can, in certain cases, reduce the number of insurable weeks that CE1C counts to establish a claim for benefits.
The passage of Bill C-50 will allow the qualifying period or the benefit period to be extended by the same number of weeks represented by the separation payment up to a maximum of 104 weeks. This will ensure that most people do not lose the protection of the UI Program.

In my judgment, Madam Speaker, Bill C-50 deserves the consideration of all Hon. Members. The proposed measures will have a direct impact on a good many Canadians. These amendments show that the Government is intent on treating all workers with fairness.
Bill C-50 must be adopted as soon as possible. The sooner the House supports this measure, the sooner the Employment and Immigration Commission will be in a position to make payments to all those who are covered under these legislative provisions.

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, the Minister did not have very much to say about this Bill and with good reason. There is not very much good to be said about it. This Bill should not have been necessary in the first place and it was only required because last year before January 5, 1986, the Government decided, cruelly and unfairly, to cut the unemployment insurance benefits of thousands and thousands of pre-retired pensioners. So the Minister comes to the House today with the Bill and does not have very much to say because there is not much good to be said for it.
At least the Government has finally put Bill C-50 before this House for debate. As you know, the Bill was tabled for consideration in Parliament on April 1 of this year but was not called until today, more than two months later, even though the Government has the right to call Bills whenever it wishes. The Government has the power to set the business of the House. If it had placed a high priority on this matter it could have been called immediately after April 1. That was not done. As a matter of fact, we only heard from the Minister and the Deputy House Leader a couple of weeks ago when they approached us in order to deal with the Bill quickly in one day after delaying it since April 1.
What is Bill C-50 all about? I think it is important to repeat the story. On January 5, 1986, the Government cut unemployment insurance benefits of all those who were forced with little choice into early retirement and reduced pensions. Some of
those people were military personnel who are required to retire in their 40s. Many others are in their early 50s with homes to maintain and children in university. While these individuals have pre-retirement pensions, many want and need to work. As required by the Unemployment Insurance Act they are ready and willing to work, otherwise they would not be eligible.
Here we have approximately 50,000 Canadians who faithfully paid their unemployment insurance contributions for years and were laid off before their official retirement age. They still want to work but they have unfairly and retroactively had their benefits cut. In the middle of the game the rules were changed. Many of these people accepted a reduced early retirement pension with the understanding that they would receive unemployment insurance until they found a new job, or for at least a year. Others counted on it to support themselves and their families until they qualified for Old Age Security at age 65.
Some employers used this system, smaller pre-retirement pensions combined with unemployment insurance, to ease older workers out in order to hire younger workers in their place. Because of the Government's action this is not possible. The Government expresses great concern about youth unemployment but its actions are a disincentive to bringing in young people to replace those older pre-retirees.
These cuts in unemployment insurance did not apply to those who took early retirement but received retirement income from stocks, bonds, registered retirement savings plans, rents or interests. In this way the measures are discriminatory. They were a cheap, cruel way of attempting to reduce the deficit on the backs of the unemployed.
The Government said to a group of pre-retired pensioners,"We are going to reduce your unemployment insurance because you have been laid off before age 65 and you are receiving a pre-retirement pension". However, others who may have taken early retirement in order to go to another job and are sustaining themselves not by a pre-retirement pension but through rents or interest from stocks or bonds, or an RRSP, are not touched in any way whatsoever. They still get their full unemployment insurance benefits.
We maintain that not only were these cuts in unemployment insurance against pre-retirement pensioners unfair, cruel and discriminatory, but also illegal. They were introduced by the Government by means of regulation, administrative action, not by a Bill in this House. We have argued that for a long time. We asked the Government to explain how it could take away benefits, reduce benefits provided for in the Unemployment Insurance Act, without amending the Act. As I said before, we had people who were obliged to pay contributions over the years, including employers, by virtue of the Act, and then the Government comes along in the dark of the night and introduces regulations to cut the benefits. That seems to me and many other learned lawyers to be illegal.
June 9, 1987

Once it was done we asked the Government to correct it in other ways. However, we want to put on record again that we believe this whole shameful mess was illegal in the first place.
Once it was announced more than a year ago we in Parliament strongly objected and asked that these measures be withdrawn. Nothing was forthcoming. The former Minister consistently refused to make any change or budge one inch. She would not agree that there was anything wrong with these cuts which, as 1 say, were introduced in the middle of the game when the rules had already been established.
Not only did we object but many associations of retired Canadians objected as well, associations of retired military personnel, retired RCMP personnel, and others from the public and private sectors. They all strongly objected. They held demonstrations on Parliament Hill. I believe we had at least three demonstrations. There were mass meetings in Montreal, Victoria, Halifax and other parts of the country. Not only did those associations and opposition Members of Parliament object, but very significantly, at the Government's economic summit conference in March of 1985, the only petition which carried-and by the way, everyone there had been invited by the Government-was ignored by the Government. Eighty of the 136 participants at the conference signed the petition which asked the Government to withdraw the measures. The Government called these people together in a conference to discuss certain economic and social questions, and the only thing the conference decided upon was ignored by the Government.
Later on we had the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council with respect to older workers. The former Minister appointed that committee to advise her on programs and policies with respect to older workers. In August of 1985 the committee presented its report entitled Older Workers, an Imminent Crisis in the Labour Market. What did it say? It said the Government should not proceed with the announced changes in the unemployment insurance regulations scheduled to take place in January of 1986 regarding the identification of pensioners' income for the period immediately following layoff until the commission of inquiry on unemployment insurance has reviewed the issue and made recommendations.
The recommendation of the committee with regard to older workers was also ignored by the Government. In the interim we asked questions of the former Minister of Employment and Immigration and, after her, of the new Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). We gave new examples of the hardship this was causing. A retired pensioner in the West committed suicide because he could no longer make ends meet. He was so struck by the harshness of this measure that he took his life. That very sad case was put on the record by one of my colleagues.
We continued to ask that this measure be rescinded, but we were refused. The answer given by the Minister on all occasions was that no changes could be made because they were
Unemployment Insurance
awaiting the recommendations of the Forget Commission. That answer was repeated over and over again.
Finally, on December 3, 1986, the Forget Commission reported and in a unanimous recommendation said that the current treatment of pension income should be rescinded with the effective date of January 5, 1986. The report went on to say that if such a policy was implemented it should be implemented on January 1, 1989. In other words, a lot of lead time should be given and it should not affect in any way those who had entered into early retirement schemes without knowing that this would happen.
In addition to the petitions, the meetings, the lobbying carried on by many associations, and the many questions put in this House, three groups set up by the Government to advise it with respect to older workers made recommendations against these cuts and asked that they be rescinded. Yet the Government refused on all occasions.
The issue did not die. These people did not give up. They continued to badger, push, pull and embarrass the Government until finally, under the new Minister, the Government agreed early this year to make some kind of reimbursement, but still on a discriminatory basis. The Government finally decided that it would reimburse those who had made their application for unemployment insurance before January 5, 1986. For those who applied after that date there is a nonsense formula.
The Government is saying that the cuts for them will be maintained because they applied after January 5, 1986, but if they get a second job and are laid off from it their preretirement pension will no longer be counted against them and their contributions on the previous job will count. They will get unemployment insurance at the full rate after being laid off from the second job.
That is a harsh and unacceptable provision. Many of these people are in their late fifties or early sixties and have no chance of getting a second job. If they live in the greater Toronto area or an area of economic growth they might be able to find a job, but a large number of these people live in Atlantic Canada or other slow growth economic regions. They are like myself and many other Members in this House in that they are in their fifties and early sixties and are still capable of working. However, we know that it is very difficult for people to get jobs at that stage of life. Because these people applied after January 5, 1986, they are subject to this cruel and harsh treatment.
In the last few days when the public knew that this Bill was coming forward today I received many calls from individuals who had been pre-retired before January 5, 1986. When they went to the Unemployment Insurance Commission to make their claims they were discouraged from doing so. The officials said there was no use in making a claim because they would not get anything anyway. They delayed making their claims until after January 5, although they could have done so before, because they did not have any expectation of what the Government might do. Later they found out that because they

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
delayed making their claims they are subject to the ridiculous proposal of having to get a second job and being laid off again. That is a very discriminatory proposal.
The Unemployment Insurance Act has always provided that while you work you pay contributions, and when you are laid off or pre-retired you get benefits. There was never any question of subjecting people to the requirement of a second job before they received benefits. This is a post-facto sort of fandangled method to get the Government out of the hole. It does not really get the Government out of the hole at all and it is unfair and discriminatory. To draw such a cut-off line between one group of pre-retirement pensioners and another is completely unacceptable.
The Government did not come to this position easily. When the Government first announced the policy, it said that it would reimburse those who applied before January 5, 1986, but only if they proved that they were misled by an official of the Department. There was a lot of protest against that and the Government backed down and finally came forward with the Bill we have today.
It is really amusing that the Government is now trying to blame the Opposition for this entire mess. Does the Government really think the public is that stupid? The Government implemented these cuts unfairly and harshly and maintained them for over a year. Finally, under pressure from the public and many groups, it backed down one-quarter of the way and then half way. That is where we stand now. Now the Government is blaming us for the fact that these people do not have their money. These people do not have their money because these cuts, which should never have been made, were made by the Government.
Bill C-50 provides for the full reimbursement of those who applied for UI before January 5. We support that, but I warn pensioners to watch out because the Government may still have some tricks up its sleeve to cut them out. However, we do approve of that provision. The Bill also contains the provision for no reimbursement of those who applied after January 5 unless they get a second job and are laid off again. We think that is discriminatory, unfair and unacceptable. We cannot support that.
Finally, there are provisions in the Bill which deal with severance pay. The Government also decided to cut back on unemployment insurance for those who got severance pay although that severance pay was necessary to relocate or set up in a new job or business. The Government of Ontario did not agree with that and passed provincial legislation to overcome the federal proposal. Through Bill C-50 the federal Government is implementing measures to render null and void that which the Ontario Government tried to do to protect certain pensioners.
We asked the Government several months ago to split this Bill into two Bills, one which would include the provision for reimbursing those who applied before January 5, 1986, which we would support and pass in five minutes. We wanted the new
fandangled ridiculous system to be put in a separate Bill. It should have been put in a separate Bill because it is something entirely new in the unemployment insurance system.
The Government refused to split the Bill. It would rather hold one group of pensioners hostage in order to implement something with which no one agrees. The Government has put a good measure in the Bill along with an awful measure and expects that we will vote for the awful measure in order to have the good measure implemented. That did not work. The Government would not split the Bill. We asked the Government to take administrative action to reimburse those pensioners who applied before January 5 and who were going to be reimbursed anyway. Since the Government cut them by administrative action, we asked it to reimburse them in the same fashion. However, the Government turned that down as well.
Today we are faced with a Bill in which one part is beneficial to pensioners who were originally cut but will now be reimbursed, but in which there are two other completely unacceptable parts.
Consequently, I want to move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word
"That" and by substituting therefor:
"this House declines to proceed with a measure, the principle of which is to provide discriminatory and inequitable treatment for pre-retired pensioners with regard to their right to unemployment insurance".
Let me tell the Minister that if he were to accept this amendment and redraft the Bill so that all pre-retired pensioners would be treated the same way, we would pass the Bill in 15 minutes without any debate. We would do it before ten o'clock today and pass the entire Bill. However, we cannot accept a Bill which discriminates against a group of pre-retired pensioners in this way.
The Government eventually saw the folly in the cuts it had made last year and has moved in a piecemeal fashion to withdraw that injustice. However, it has only gone halfway. Why does the Government not recognize that these cuts were entirely wrong, as suggested by the Forget Commission, the advisory council on older workers, and as recommended by the people who attended the Prime Minister's economic summit? I suggest that the Government could accept this amendment and easily redraft the Bill.
I have further amendments to put forward in Committee of the Whole if the Minister does not accept this amendment, but this could be done very quickly and the Bill redrafted so that it would be non-discriminatory toward all pre-retired pensioners. We could then pass the Bill.
If the Government decides to reintroduce these measures next year so that they become effective at a future date, we would still oppose such legislation, but at least everyone would know the rules of the game and that the measure would be put into effect.
June 9, 1987

We appeal to the Government's sense of fair play and justice not to maintain this Bill in its present form in which it treats one group of pre-retired pensioners in one way and discriminates harshly and cruelly against others.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, in the 11 years I have been in the House of Commons I have never seen a measure that has been subject to as much change as this. It is like taking three steps forward, four back, another three steps forward and five steps back.
On November 8, 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program that would affect pensions and severance pay. The Minister of Finance said that henceforth, pension income will be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes and likewise for severance pay. In the 45 years since the inception of the Unemployment Insurance Program, pension income was never so considered.
Some may ask why the Government decided to make these changes in November, 1984. The only charitable reason I can find is that the Government was newly elected and did not know what it was doing. In fact, it was in that same period that it tried to deindex old age pensions. Perhaps the Government was mesmerized and did not realize that the Unemployment Insurance Program had generated a surplus of $800 million in 1986 and 1987 and was projected to generate $1.7 billion in surplus in 1987 and 1988. Although the unemployment insurance fund was not in a deficit position, the Government made this announcement as a result of its fixation on fighting the deficit.
While it was forced to back off on deindexing, we are still faced with this announced move on unemployment insurance as far as the pensions are concerned. We in the New Democratic Party fought that move from the moment the Minister made his announcement. We launched an attack on that provision regarding the treatment of pension income as earned income.
I want to make it crystal clear to those who are watching this debate, particularly retirees in the private and public sector and in the Armed Forces, that our Party's position is based on the principle that Bill C-50 does not apply to pension income vis-a-vis earned income and earned benefits prior to 1984. It will only affect about one-third of the 50,000 early retirees who have been affected by the announced changes in November 8, 1984. Our position is that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.
The Minister may believe that he is taking the right steps and some of his colleagues in the back benches may believe that he is taking the right action, but there is absolutely no reason for him to consider making what we believe to be an iniquitous change because the Unemployment Insurance Program is generating $1.7 billion in surplus, based on present premiums. That is in addition to the $800 million generated in the fund last year.
Unemployment Insurance
Why is it necessary to nickel and dime people who took early retirement, in many cases to protect the jobs of younger workers? Why is it necessary to nickel and dime people who served this country in the Armed Forces, many of whom have no choice but to retire after 35 years in the services? The Government rewards them by saying they will not get the full unemployment insurance.
We believe this Bill is flawed on several grounds. It is a discriminatory Bill. One would assume that everybody who has saved for their retirement would be affected by the Government's announced changes on November 8, 1984 and by this Bill. However, that is not the case. One is only affected by this Bill if one has contributed to a pension fund in the workplace. Those who have contributed a percentage of their pay to a pension fund which has been matched by the employer are affected by this Bill. In other words, those who put money aside for retirement are affected by this legislation.
Armed Forces personnel are affected, those who have contributed to a provincial pension fund are affected, and those who have contributed to the Canada Pension Plan are affected. What if one is working in a company which offers no pension plan? If one took 7 per cent or 8 per cent of one s income every month and put it into some savings plan which would pay some sort of pension after 30 or 35 years, or if one put it into buying condominiums as an investment so that at retirement one can retire and live on the rental income, one could collect full unemployment insurance benefits and the pension would not be affected.
Large numbers of workers at Inco were encouraged to take early retirement to protect the jobs of younger workers. Because of the relationship between the leadership of the union and the company, they entered into a deal whereby in the first year of retirement the company would defer paying pension for a year, which would allow the workers to collect unemployment insurance for 49 weeks while they looked for work. After that, the pension from the company would be increased by a percentage to make up for the year which was deferred. One cannot do that in the armed services, and many other employers would not engage in that practice for their employees. So this Bill discriminates. It is illogical.
On November 8, 1984, the Minister and the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, who is now the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), took the position that pension income was earned income, and she repeated that time and time again. What does this Bill do? It sets up two classes and it says that if one gets a second job while on pension and then loses that job, one can collect unemployment insurance benefits and full pension. What happened to the principle of pension income as earned income? It went out of the window. In fact, what the Government is doing is setting up two classes. At least, it ought to be consistent. If pension is earned income, then that is what it should be. What is so magical after the second job? One is still receiving the pension income from the

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
first job. It is absolutely ludicrous. It is stupid. What does the Government think Canadians are that they will not see through this?
I want to make crystal clear again to those who are watching, that while I have no problem with paying people their unemployment insurance based on what one part of this Bill is proposing, we cannot, in principle, accept that two-thirds of employees have to get a second job before they can collect. We cannot accept that because that is an injustice to 50,000 pensioners who were affected by this change in 1984.
We say the Bill is unfair. In many parts of the country such as Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, parts of Quebec, the Prairies and British Columbia, it is not easy for an older worker who takes an early retirement to get a second job. What the Government is saying is that if one happens to live in the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario, that is great, one would be able to collect unemployment insurance and receive one's pension because one has a second job. But in many regions of the country it is not easy for the older worker to get a second job, and so they would never collect.
We say this Bill is absolutely undemocratic. On November 8, 1984, the Minister of Finance consulted no one, neither the Minister nor the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and we discovered that when the commission appeared before the standing committee. Neither did he consult the Advisory Council of the Department of Employment and Immigration, nor Members of Parliament, nor those who have an interest in unemployment insurance. The Minister of Finance unilaterally, in his autocratic way, rose in this House and holus-bolus said: "Boom, you are gone, sacked. You got it". He must have been taking lessons from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he said to the pensioners: "Zap, zap, you got it". What did he do? He amended-and this is the undemocratic part- an Act of Parliament by regulation. Parliament passed the Act which provided pensioners with their unemployment insurance and their pension income, but this Tory Government and this Minister amended that Act by regulation, which is an undemocratic principle. We in this House had no opportunity to debate those measures. I accuse this Government of being undemocratic, unfair and illogical. I can think of other things of which I can accuse the Government but this is a family show.
To rub salt in the wound, having amended an Act of Parliament by regulations, having taken away the pensioners UI benefits by regulation, what does the Minister do? He says: "Well, we cannot give it back to some of them by regulation. We have to do it by an Act of Parliament". So we have this mess of porridge called Bill C-50. People out there watching have to understand what a snivelling group are those sitting on the government side, although they are not so snivelling when it comes to their corporate friends, their buddies in high places.
We on this side of the House cannot support this Bill. The principle is flawed. I want people to understand as they watch this process that about one-third of those who are eligible will receive some money, but the fact is that two-thirds are going to
be denied what is rightfully theirs. They have contributed. It is like an insurance scheme. Imagine, Madam Speaker, if you had fire insurance on your house and you paid the premiums faithfully and then the house burned down? You go to the insurance company and tell them your house burned down and you are ready to collect, and they say: "Well, just a minute now. You have $80,000 in the bank, two cars, and are earning so much in salary. Sorry, we cannot pay because you have income".
What kind of cockamammie scheme is that? What kind of a jiggery-pokery scheme is this? This is just flimflammery. It is taxation without representation, that is what it is. They have no choice but to pay the premium. Once they are working in the workforce of Canada, they have to pay, but then they will face all of these hurdles in order to collect.
This is a cruel Government. I want to make it clear that it is cruel, particularly with people who do not have the muscle to fight back. Across the country groups have fought against the original announcement since it was made in November, 1984. All the pension groups which have contacted me through my newsletters have indicated their opposition to Bill C-50. They are solidly together-they stand in sohdarity. They have said that an injustice to one is an injustice to all. While there are some who are anxious to receive what is rightfully theirs under this Bill, there are far too many who will be denied and who will continue to be denied what is rightfully theirs in terms of unemployment insurance.
The compromise which the Government has come up with in Bill C-50 is no compromise at all. We will vote against this Bill. I want people to understand why we are voting against it. It is because in principle the Bill is flawed. It is because of that that I am now prepared to introduce an amendment.
I move:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word
"that" and substituting the following:
"the House refuse to continue the studying of this Bill which:
(a)	contradicts the principle that pension income is earned income and that
pension is considered earnings for unemployment insurance purposes; and
(b)	creates discrimination in an essential service."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has listened carefully to the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The Chair realizes that the amendment is not at all related to the amendment previously moved by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). Hence, at this time, the Chair cannot receive the amendment from the Hon. Member. Of course, it could be moved once we have disposed of the amendment which is already before the House.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, just for clarification, after we have disposed of the amendment that is before the House, will the Chair then entertain my amendment?
June 9, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member has already spoken so someone else will have to move the amendment once we have disposed of the amendment which is being debated at the moment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify the situation. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), has been speaking to the amendment put forward by my colleague from the Liberal Party. Therefore, after we dispose of the amendment, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt will actually have an opportunity to speak again to the original motion. If he so wishes at that time he can then put his amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has effectively spoken on the amendment. Thus he could be heard again on the main motion, of course.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in debate on Bill C-50. As all Hon. Members know we will be sitting today and into the evening in order to have an opportunity to have a full discussion of the provisions of the Bill.
I would like to deal with the basic principles of what we are discussing today. That will take us back to November of 1984 when, as a Government, we came out with a policy statement which stated that, basically, all forms of income arising out of employment should be treated equally with respect to applying for unemployment insurance income. That is the basic principle that the Government has put forward, and it is our policy.
As some Hon. Members have already indicated, in November of 1984 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced this principle he said that it would become effective as of January, 1985. In December of that year the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, having looked at the situation and having recognized that there would need to be a further transitional period because people had not had the opportunity to change their retirement plans or make the appropriate arrangements, agreed to an extension of the implementation of this provision to January 5, 1986.
Today, in recognition of some of the concerns that have arisen in the interim period we are bringing forward legislation to clarify those concerns. In particular, we will put into effect a distinction between those persons who retire and those persons who, having taken an early retirement have not actually gone out of the workforce, who then go back into the workforce, will requalify at some later date if they are unemployed and be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
The third provision of the legislation deals with the issue of severance or separation pay and provides a more equitable way of dealing with it. It enables those who have received separation pay to qualify for UI benefits under the appropriate circumstances and receive the full benefit to which they would be entitled, perhaps up to as much as 50 weeks. I know from my own experience in dealing with constituents that these
Unemployment Insurance
measures will be very much welcomed. In fact, we know that there will be about 55,000 Canadians who will benefit to the tune of about $295 million as a result of the legislation we are putting forward today. That is why we want to get it done, so that those who will qualify can begin to receive those additional funds.
I think that the basic principle has to be clearly understood.
I am not sure that it has been understood by many Canadians.
It makes the distinction that all forms of income from employment, in this case including pensions that arise as a result of employment, be treated in the same way. Therefore, this income would be deducted from any eligible benefits for UI. Of course, we know that in some cases where there is a high pension that person is not eligible for UI, obviously.
We have made this important distinction. It is one which has been brought to the attention of many in British Columbia. We had a meeting not long ago in Nanaimo at which we met with a number of retirees. We certainly heard from them that in many cases the retirement they were taking was not a permanent retirement, it was an early retirement. They were actually going back into the workforce and would be contributing again to unemployment insurance. In the event that they are laid off from that job, or some other unfortunate circumstance arose, they should be eligible to collect UI. As my colleague from Nanaimo-Alberni has indicated, that is something we felt to be only fair and appropriate. So we are very pleased that the Government has come forward with that amendment.
We also recognize that there has been some confusion about the various eligibility rules. Therefore, we are making it clear that those persons who have retired and who were receiving pension income but who had applied for UI benefits prior to January 5, 1986, will have their claims dealt with under the old rules.
Those who applied prior to January 5, 1986 come under the old rules, and those who apply after that date will come under the new rules. Hopefully that distinction, which is being clearly made in the legislation, will clear up some of the concerns we have heard over the past year in dealing with the issue.
We recognized that some of the administrative procedures and proposals made earlier caused some confusion, so we eliminated that complexity and the potential for uneven application across the country. We brought about changes to the implementation of that January 5, 1986 ruling.
The legislation with which we are now dealing draws a very clear and simple line to ensure fairness in the transitional provisions of the regulation for early retirees. I just want to make very clear that those who applied for unemployment insurance prior to January, 1986 under the old rules will have their entitlement to benefits determined under the old rules. Equally and in a straightforward manner, those who apply for

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
benefits after January 5, 1986 will be governed by the new provisions.
However, the principle-and we have not deviated from it- still comes back to the issue that the income one derives from employment, whether it is through wages, separation pay, or pension income, is considered income. I think most Canadians agree with the point of view that UI, for perhaps too long, was considered as something everyone got. It is not. It is a special provision under special circumstances. It was not designed to deal with those people who were retiring and leaving the workforce and had entitlement to an appropriate pension benefit from their employers.
Members will recall that on December 5, 1986, when the Minister announced his intention to modify the UI legislation dealing with pension earnings, he maintained the principle that persons who have retired should not use UI as a supplementary income. The announcement proposed that workers who took other employment after retirement and then worked long enough to requalify for UI benefits should receive the benefits without any deduction of their previous pension income. This particularly applies as we see people, perhaps increasingly, taking early retirement, in their early forties, some from the Armed Forces or police forces. They are not leaving the workforce; they are applying and going into other fields of employment. They will be treated as new entrants into the workforce in respect of UI.
With this Bill we are amending the pension regulations to permit this kind of thing as of April 5, 1987. With regard to qualifying for UI, we are making retroactive requalification back to January 5, 1986.
The changes will ensure that workers who start subsequent careers and contribute to unemployment insurance and subsequently become unemployed will be entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits based upon their postretirement employment income regardless of their previous pension income.
Returning to the issue of separation pay, again it was an issue of fairness. I have certainly dealt with particular situations which have arisen in connection with the treatment of separation payments. Members will recall that on March 31, 1985 the treatment of payments on separation for unemployment insurance purposes was changed.
There were two facets to it. Certain employer-employee agreements have sought to take advantage of what might be construed as a loophole in the wording of current UI regulations. The purpose of the amendments is to provide a clear legislative attempt to avoid these kinds of loopholes. More important, they will provide an extension for the qualifying and benefit periods when an allocation of separation payments has prevented the payment of a UI benefit or has delayed the start of a UI claim.
For example, if an allocation of separation pay delays the start of a claim by seven weeks or ten weeks, the qualifying period can then be extended by seven weeks or ten weeks. If a
person received 104 weeks of separation pay, in other words two years, he or she would not be eligible to claim UI. I think it is only fair. Obviously those persons are fortunate enough to receive two years of separation pay, and if they return to the workforce at some point, we hope they would be able to find that kind of employment in the two-year period.
The legislation maintains the basic principle of keeping separate the concept of unemployment insurance from regular income. Yet it deals with what we have found to be some of the inequities and unfairness which were brought to the attention of the Minister.
I compliment both the present Minister and his predecessors because they listened very carefully to recommendations which were brought forward by members of my Party and by members of the Opposition. They listened to the concerns which were expressed across the country.
In bringing forward the recommendations and the legislation today, we are dealing with those concerns and ensuring both fairness and equity in the treatment of Canadians, while maintaining the fundamental principle that UI should not be considered a supplementary income when a person retires no matter what the circumstances.
I appreciate the co-operation and support of all Members of the House in dealing with the issue today and this evening. We can deal with consideration in committee and third reading stage so that the 55,000 Canadians who will benefit from these changes will indeed start to receive their cheques.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the Hon. Member. I would be curious to know how she has responded to those people in the Armed Forces and the RCMP who, by definition, receive pre-retirement incomes and then are expected to find a job.
The Hon. Member represents a constituency in British Columbia where the economic situation has been so woefully bad in the last number of years that many people who have retired from the Armed Forces and the RCMP have been simply unable to find jobs for many months, and in some cases longer. What has she said to those people who paid into the unemployment insurance fund for their entire working lives, only to find upon retirement that they were not eligible for the benefits for which they paid together with their employers for so many years?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. colleague. I am sure that he, as have I, will have been pleased to have noted that in the recent statistics over the past week the unemployment levels in British Columbia, particularly in the Vancouver region, have dropped. It is a very encouraging signal and one we look forward to continuing over coming months as many of the economic initiatives of the Government take hold. These will be followed of course by the proposals in the western diversification plan, which I am sure will also be very important to British Columbia and the other western provinces.
June 9, 1987

In respect of the other part of the Hon. Member's question, we must again come back to the basic principle or the basic policy we have enunciated. UI is not paid to everyone. When one retires and receives a pension, one does not qualify for unemployment insurance. It is only for those who then go back into the workforce and requalify as part of their second career, second job, or whatever, and are paying back into unemployment insurance. If they should be laid off or lose that job, whatever benefits they have accrued as a result of the second job would then make them eligible for payments only related to the second job. It does not change the basic principle. When one retires and receives pension income arising out of one's employment, that pension income is considered as income and reduces one's eligibility for unemployment insurance.


Mr. Henderson:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) a question about what I think is the discrimination which this Bill provides after January 5, 1986. For example, an Armed Forces person who has served the country for 25 to 30 years, receiving very very low pay in the early stages of his or her career, retires, not voluntarily, because many people are forced to retire. Their trade may no longer be useful. Armed Forces people are at a tremendous disadvantage because, having had to retire at 45 to 50, it is very difficult to find a job in the private sector in most parts of the country. I speak mainly of my own province. A more extreme example would be parts of Newfoundland and parts of Prince Edward Island where unemployment rates are exceptionally high. Areas in Newfoundland have over 35 per cent unemployment.
People of 45 to 50 years of age are at a time in their life when costs are at their highest. They have children finishing high school. Some have children in university. There is a great misconception about the size of the pensions of some of these people, who are paying mortgages and trying to educate their children. These people have paid premiums into UIC for 25 years, which is back-door taxation in its worst form, and they are told that there is no way they can qualify for UI.
I have people who have come into my office for over a year, not former Armed Forces personnel. They are young people who cannot find a job, so how do we expect those who have had to retire from the Armed Forces to find ready-made jobs? People have settled. They have planned for years and have bought houses. Some of them are in parts of the country where they cannot find another job.
I would like the Hon. Member to comment on that. I must have 50 letters from people who find themselves in that serious situation. I just cannot understand why any Member of the House of Commons would ever agree with that part of this Bill.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. One has to come back to the basic principle that pension income arising out of employment is
Unemployment Insurance
now considered deductible from UI benefits. That has been well known since November-December, 1984.


John R. Rodriguez: You will find out in the next election.


Mary Collins: For two and a half years people have been able to plan on that basis and to recognize that in planning for their retirement-


An Hon. Member:: They are not all the same.


Mary Collins: Obviously it varies. Someone who has a high pension will not be eligible for any UI.


Mr. Robinson:: It may wash in Vancouver, but that does not wash in Burnaby.


Mary Collins: For those whose pensions are very low, my understanding is that they can still be supplemented, and 1 come back to what I said. For too long people thought of UI as kind of a retirement cushion. That is not what it is all about. It is there to look after people who, because of circumstances in their workplace, have been temporarily laid off for a period of time. It is to help them readjust. It is just a change in thinking-


Mr. Manly:: Tory thinking.


Mary Collins: -that people will have to understand. I support that point of view. People will have to make their plans based on that reality.


Mr. Allmand:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member said that the distinction in the Bill between those who get full reimbursement under the Bill and those who do not is based on whether they really take retirement or whether they are retired but want to work again. It seems to me the Member has not read the Bill.


John R. Rodriguez: She does not know the Act.


William Warren Allmand: If a person were forced to retire, as my friend pointed out, and wanted to work, that person is cut back just the same. The distinction in the Bill has nothing to do with whether one wants to work or does not want to work. The distinction is whether one happens to apply after January 5 or before January 5.
Does the Hon. Member support a system where some people who retired before January 5 but through illness, by misinformation, travel or whatever were not able to make their application until after January 5, are subject to the cuts, but a colleague down the street who retired at the same time but got his application in before January 5 is fully reimbursed? That is what is in the Bill. Does the Hon. Member support that?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, because I know he has been involved in UI for many years, within every UI office there is always some flexibility to deal with particular situations where, for valid reasons, a

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
person was unable to make the application on that date. As I understand it, there is that discretion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: There is no discretion.


Mary Collins: It may indeed apply in this circumstance as well.
[Translation)


Mr. Jean-C'laude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-50. I suggest it is important that everyone should remember why Bill C-50 was introduced in the first place. The fact that we now have a measure designed to make refunds or correct the mistakes of the Conservative Government does not in any way reflect the will of the Conservative Government nor of the Conservative Members, except for one or two.
First it must be recalled that on January 5, 1986-this was the outcome of a December 23, 1985 decision to make a Christmas gift-the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister himself saw fit to cut off the unemployment insurance benefits to which older workers voluntarily or involuntarily opting for early retirement were entitled. For example, an older worker who lost his job because the plant shut down. He had the right to withdraw his pension plan contributions, so the Government decided to cut him off Ul benefits because he was receiving pension benefits. The decision was officially made public on January 5, 1986 and we know that the ensuing wave of protests from Canadians generally and the the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, forced the Government to take cover behind the Forget Commission, waiting for advice. We also know that on December 3, 1986 the Forget Commission told the Government: You are wrong, you must rescind these regulations and reimburse older workers. On December 5, two days later, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) did admit the Conservative Government had erred and he unveiled policy changes.
Sadly enough, when the Minister of Employment and Immigration made his announcement he failed to remove all discrimination and, a few months later, he showed us a questionnaire which was more like a request that older workers in fact denounce the officials who were alleged to have misinformed them. And so it was that strong representations made by ARSAC, by the coalition and by spokesmen for retired military personnel once again forced the Government to backtrack and withdraw the questionnaire after owning up to its monumental blunder.
The end result of all this was that on March 18, 17 months later, the Government agreed that it was completely mistaken, that it was wrong to seek to cancel Ul benefits, particularly in the case of men and women who had vested rights, and on April 1 the Government introduced Bill C-50.
Unfortunately, once more, older workers had to put pressure on this Conservative Government. In each Conservative
constituency, they had to put pressure on their Members of Parliament to force the Government to debate this bill on June 9.
After fighting for seventeen months, older workers have won only part of the battle. For them, victory will come in two years when they defeat this Government. What they have won now, Madam Speaker, is that all workers who retired before January 5, 1986, voluntarily or not, and who filed a claim at their unemployment insurance office, and there are 35,000 of them, will be paid a total of $65 million.
Unfortunately, there are still 2,500 people in Canada who, as my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has just reminded me, also took early retirement voluntarily or not before January 5, 1986. The most obvious example is the case of the Gulf refinery employees who lost their jobs because of this Conservative Government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Because of this Prime Minister and this Government, these people have been denied their full unemployment insurance benefits. This is what happened when they filed a claim, Madam Speaker, as shown by the affidavits signed by people from all Quebec constituencies who have sent me postdated applications to prove that they went to their unemployment insurance office between September and November 1985 to file a claim, where they were told by unemployment insurance officials: "You have your separation pay and sick leave; when those have run out, you can come back and be eligible for unemployment insurance."
Once more, there is nothing for them in this Bill. Unfortunately, no Conservative Member is rising to defend these 2,500 people who are entitled to the full reimbursement of their unemployment insurance benefits because their case dates back to 1985. I trust that, when we move an amendment in committee, the Conservatives will rise to support this amendment so that all those who stopped working before January 5, 1986, will become eligible even if they did not go to their unemployment insurance office immediately. I have here a letter from a voter in a Conservative riding who has this to say: "I took early retirement on December 31, 1985. On January 1, 1986, Government offices were closed and the company office and staff were on holidays." This worker received his job separation form only on January 8, and when he went to the unemployment insurance office to file a claim, the Government would not let him.
There are hundred of cases in every constituency and this injustice will remain if the Government does nothing.
Wc all recall that the Government decided in secret to commit this injustice toward older workers by having an order in council published before the Christmas adjournment on December 23, so that no one would learn about it. The Cabinet had met with the Minister in secret to attack older workers, and all the Ministers who are here now were accomplices in that decision.
June 9, 1987

Today, the Government could have used the same method to say it had made a mistake and committed an injustice and that the Cabinet would cancel rules 57 and 58 to reimburse everyone automatically without discriminating against older workers.
Let us see now what we have in the Bill for all the men and women who have lost their jobs. People in the Champlain constituency, in the Trois-Rivieres area, in East Montreal, in Abitibi, in Murdochville. Workers in Murdochville who are going to lose their jobs, will withdraw their pension funds, which belong to them, and contrary to what the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) did, those people have contributed to a registered retirement plan out of their own income, They have used their own money to contribute. But those people will not be eligible for full unemployment insurance benefits. In Murdochville, those people will have to find another job, work for 20 weeks, and then they will be told that if they lose that second job, they will qualify under the system on the basis of what the Hon. Member for Capilano called-as the Hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration says, on the basis of employment income. That time it will work. The first time was no good. Yet what people tend to forget is that the unemployment insurance benefits paid to those recipients will be based on the income from their second job.
Take all the members of the Armed Forces in Canada. All the servicemen. The Government wants to spend $186 billion to buy submarines to defend ourselves against the invisible enemy. The enemy of Canadians is "Brian Mulroney" and the Conservative Government. That Government is reluctant to pay even its servicemen. It told so to the Armed Forces Personnel in Canada-and I am surprised that Conservative Members from provinces other than Quebec do not stand up to speak for those servicemen. We have former members of the Armed Forces in this House. It is a shame to see them remain silent.
That means that all those who now serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, and who have to quit their job, will not be eligible for full unemployment insurance during the seven, eight or nine months when they look for another job. And if after ten months they find another job and they work until they are 65, they will have paid unemployment insurance, they will have lost a job and they will have been discriminated against by this Government. Those people will never have been eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
Those are the facts. Later on, we will be proposing amendments. We look forward to the attitude of Conservative Members . . . Some of them siad that they were open in their consitituencies. When people forced into early retirement went and met them specifically, they all said: You are right. But the time of reconing has come, and we shall know where we all stand.
Contrary to what the NDP says, I believe it would be wrong to vote against that Bill. It is not a perfect Bill, it is not a Government Bill. The reason we are dealing with this Bill is that the Official Opposition, the Liberals, the people of
Unemployment Insurance
Canada have forced it upon the Government, Without the action of the Official Opposition, elderly people would never have been entitled to a refund. It was what the present Employment and Immigration Minister was hoping for, when he took part in the decision to cut unemployment insurance benefits, and we know what the Minister did with the Forget Commission. He wanted $6 million of the Canadian peoples' money, of the Canadian taxpayers' money. Now, Mr. Minister, whereas you took part in wasting $6 million, $4.5 million is all that would be required to bring some fairness to 2,500 people.
Mr. Minister, given that you have wasted all that money, I do hope that you will have a little more social sympathy when you think of those people.
Madam Speaker, what will be the consequences for older workers? There will fall into two groups: those who will be entitled to the benefits of a RRSP and those who will be entitled to the benefits of a Registered Pension Plan. And both will be penalized.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration will be entitled to a pension as a former director of a CEGEP and former teacher. He will get his full pension. When the time comes for him to collect his pension as a former teacher and former director of a CEGEP, he will not be asked: How much income do you get from other sources? Both he and his employer have contributed to his pension fund. Why should the Minister, who will be entitled to payment of a full pension, deprive older workers of their full unemployment insurance benefits while they remain available for work?
Madam Speaker, I would hope that the Minister comes to the realization that as a result of his Bill, some 2,500 people are in the grey area, I mean those older workers who have agreed to an early retirement. Take the case for instance of the Wabasso workers and those from various other companies in Trois-Rivieres, Champlain, both Montreal East and Montreal West, as well as Saint-Hyacinthe. Their company has closed down and were laid off because of some provincial piece of legislation, they received separation payment after a notice of so many weeks. The House will remember the case of the Gulf refinery in Montreal East which was closed down by this Conservative Government:	Because these workers had
accepted separation payments, something like eight, ten or eleven weeks in compensation following the closing of the plant, they could not-and I have obtained notices from the Department, pursuant to section 17: The employment office cannot entertain an application for unemployment insurance benefits as long as the separation payments have not been exhausted.
Mister Minister, I do hope that you know the Unemployment Insurance Act and Regulations. To conclude, Madam Speaker, I wish to remind the Minister that the committee of the House, made up of representatives from the three parties, have recommended to withdraw Sections 57 and 58 and not to discriminate against older workers, both men and women.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. Desrosiers:: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask our colleague the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) whether he was present when the federal Government reopened the refinery he was referring to earlier in which millions of dollars were invested so that all the workers would get their job back.
Madam Speaker, furthermore I should like to ask him whether he remembers that three other refineries were closed down in Montreal East-of which time the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie never objected to or challenged their closing nor stood up for the hundreds of thousands of workers whose jobs were lost in Montreal East.
1 hope that the Canadian people who are listening today will remember that when the three refineries which were closed down under the Liberal Government-the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie never stood up in the House to defend these hundreds of thousands of employees. And today he rises in the House to blame us for the closing of the Gulf refinery. May 1 remind him that he was here when we reopened the Gulf refinery and gaving back their jobs to all former employees, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Malepart:: Madam Speaker, I am under the sad impression the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) will go back to singing, because he just proved clearly that, as people in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve say, he did not do his homework on the Gulf refinery. He should have attended more regularly the Survival Committee and defend the rights of people in Hochelaga, Mercier, Rosemont; if he had done so, he would know the Gulf refinery facilities reopened thanks to the provincial government.
The Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is not aware of it, unfortunately but quite understandably because he is present neither in Ottawa nor in his constituency, but half of the Gulf refinery employees are still laid off.
As a concrete example and proof, it is not for nothing that employees of a shut-down company have to send letters to the editors in district newspapers in order to meet the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
And despite what the Hon. Member just said about the Gulf refinery, only 50 per cent of employees got their jobs back there. The Federal Government did nothing-it was a Cabinet decision to shut the Gulf refinery down.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) had risen and said "The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is right". There are senior workers in the constituency of Hochelaga. Two plants are shutting down in the constituency of Hochelaga. I would have expected that the Hon. Member would rise and tell the Minister of Employment and Immigration: You are wrong, because older Hochelaga-Maisonneuve workers at the two companies that are closing down will not be entitled to full unemployment insurance. His role and his duty today would have been to rise and defend them. My conclusion
is that he preferred to remain seated rather than defend his constituency, and the people will get rid of him soon.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, thousands of members of the Canadian Armed Forces from across Canada, including my constituency of Burnaby as well as others, including the Hon. Member who just spoke, are deeply concerned. They feel betrayed by the Government's policy on unemployment insurance. We know, because of Armed Forces policy, that these people are forced to retire at an age when in many cases they want to continue working. Despite that and despite the fact they are actively seeking employment, government policy denies them unemployment insurance. In some cases they have paid into the unemployment insurance program for many, many years. To me it is a betrayal of the members of Canada's Armed Forces and a breach of the contract they made with the Government to tell them they are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits now. This Bill continues to exclude those people from coverage and makes an arbitrary division between those who retired before January 5 and those who retired after.
It is in that light that I want to ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) why he and his colleagues in the Liberal Party support this legislation. I am amazed that the Liberal Party is prepared to put its principles behind it and vote in support of this Bill despite the fact that it slams the door on thousands of Canadians who are entitled to unemployment insurance. How can Liberal Members stand up in good conscience, in principle, and support this Bill when it is so deeply flawed and denies unemployment insurance to so many Canadians who have legitimately earned it?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I thank the Hon. Member for it. We must keep reminding ourselves of what the Government did, what the situation was before January 5, 1986, and what the proposals are.
Before January 5, 1986, there was no difference made between income from an employer-employee or any other kind of pension plan, as far as unemployment insurance benefits were concerned. The decision made by this Government after January 5, 1986, is that not only our Armed Forces personnel, our people in the RCMP-and it is not my first responsibility to defend those people, I am thinking of all the older workers-those people found a new job, they kept on paying full unemployment insurance contributions, but they were not eligible to benefits.
What is the gain made by older workers under Bill C-50? This afternoon those people will be here. In the first place, all those affected by the decision of January 5, 1986 will get a refund. Secondly, there is a step forward, that is those who continued to make unemployment insurance contributions and were not eligible to receive benefits, will now be eligible.
June 9, 1987

However, I agree with the Hon. Member that it is not entirely satisfactory. I remember the workers of Lapalme and those of Richelieu and I will not ask anyone to sacrifice $10,000 to uphold the interests of someone else. And considering that it is a step in the right direction, I will support the Bill. The NDP will make its own decision and be accountable to its electors.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague from Montreal- Sainte-Marie and I was startled when 1 heard him say about my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve that he had not risen to defend strongly the rights of preretired workers. But, Madam Speaker, 1 read carefully Hansard for the early eighties when three oil refineries were closed. Nowhere did I read any comment by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) indicating that he said to the then Prime Minister: "No! I am against that, because several hundred thousand workers will be laid off'. I did not hear him say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse):"l am against that, because workers should be protected". And today he is acting hypocritically, because he has set up a survival committee. Why did he not do so when the three other refineries were closed down? Why did he not rise as an honest man to say once for all: "No, I am against that, I want to protect the workers." Madam Speaker, the enemy of preretired workers is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: What the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) is saying is stupid. It confirms ... It so happens that I visited the ridings of Champlain and Trois-Rivieres for meetings with unemployment action committees and preretired pensioners. The Hon. Member for Champlain and the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) displayed what courage they had. They remained in hiding. They remained in Ottawa and sent their secretaries to defend them.


Michel Champagne: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on a point of order.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, what the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is saying is completely distorted. If we did not attend, it was not because we did not want to be there. It is because we were invited at a few hours' notice, which was not the case for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: This is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order. Very briefly, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Hon. Member is obviously squirming. He proves once again to be as much a disappointment as the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers). Old workers expect the support of the Hon. Member for
Unemployment Insurance
Champlain who deluded them into believing he would protect their interests. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member did not rise to their defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, this travesty of a Bill, C-50, typifies the entire reason why the Government is in so much trouble. It typifies why the Government has gone down in the polls consistently over the last two and a half years. It typifies why the Government is headed for defeat in the next election.
The roots go back to November 8, 1984, when the Government thought it had a mandate from the people of Canada to do practically whatever it wanted. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought in an economic statement at that time through which the Government hoped to save $120 million off the backs of Canadian working people. In the changes to regulations which were announced in that economic statement both pension income and severance pay were classified as earnings for the purpose of calculating unemployment insurance. The Government thought it was in bright days in that time and could do whatever it wanted.
Opposition to that was mounted first in the House of Commons by Members like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who saw what was happening, and then by the working people across Canada who recognized the threat which this posed to them and their livelihood. This forced the Government to delay the implementation of these provisions. The provision with regard to severance pay was delayed until March 31, 1985, and the pension provisions were delayed until January 5, 1986.
The unfairness to older workers was so obvious and evident that the Government thought that by delaying it people would become used to it and it would not be such a bitter pill to swallow. The matter was referred to the Forget Commission, but the Government refused to ask for an early recommendation. When the Forget Commission finally reported, it recommended that these provisions with regard to pension income being counted as income for the purposes of calculating unemployment insurance be dropped. However, the Government refused to act immediately on that.
The issue has been dragging on and on. The Government finally introduced a Bill in April. It is trying to blame the Opposition for the fact that it has not been dealt with, but the Government is supposed to be in charge of its own legislative timetable. Why has it not acted?
It is important that the people of Canada understand the unfairness and discrimination which was involved in the

June 9, 1987
regulations originally brought in by the Minister of Finance and the Conservative Government in November, 1984. I can underline that unfairness by talking about the impact it has had in my riding where many former service personnel have retired. It is important to remember that for most ratings in the Armed Forces early retirement is a requirement.
After 25 years in the services many members are required to retire. They are aged 45 to 50 and still have growing families. They still have heavy mortgage payments to make and must make provisions for their children's education. They still have a good part of their working lives ahead of them. The pensions they receive from the Canadian Armed Forces are not extravagant. They are very modest and they have a difficult time getting by on them. They need to have continuing employment but in that part of Canada there is high unemployment and it is very difficult for many of these early retirees to find employment.
When these regulations were brought in they formed a group called the UIC Repeal Group, 1986. It is made up not only of ex-service people but as well of early retirees from the Public Service and also of people on private sector pensions. This group is made up of working people who feel that they have been betrayed by the Government. They feel that the Government was elected on a promise of fairness and to create jobs. The jobs have not been created, particularly in my area, and instead of fairness they see discrimination pointed directly at them.
To give you a better idea 1 will read briefly from a couple of the letters I have received on this issue. A person living in Ganges, British Columbia, writes:
Perhaps you can better explain why I can't or won't receive unemployment insurance benefits after having been told by my former employer B.C. Hydro and my union, I.B.E.W. that I should apply for same.
In November 1986 I went to the U.I.C. office in Saanich and registered my application. In a few weeks I received two cards to complete and return on the appropriate dates which I did. Several weeks later I received a rather ambiguous letter-informing me of the weekly amount of my monthly pension but not denying me my claim, along with more cards to fill out. I have regularly been receiving and sending cards since.
Finally, sometime later, I phoned the office to try to determine exactly what if anything was happening with my claim and was told that I was not entitled to any benefits unless I returned to work for the required minimum number of weeks. This seems to me to be absolutely ludicrous and totally unacceptable. I served overseas with the RCAF during WW2 and understand my Ul payments were made by the military, I've worked for over 38 years and have never made a claim. I've taken early retirement because I am unable to safely climb power poles anymore, (I was a Hydro lineman) my monthly pension is considered to be "earned income" and now I'm told all of that amounts to nothing, but if I return to work for 20 weeks I will be eligible for benefits. This surely has to be the ultimate insult.
The contradictory newspaper articles I've chanced across have done nothing but confuse me and in fact I fear I might find myself in a "no man's land" since my effective retirement date was 30 September 1986.
The correspondent is completely correct. He is in a no man's land, and that is exactly where this legislation leaves him. Perhaps I can call it one o'clock and resume my speech later.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At I p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Prince Edward Island Union of Public Sector Employees represents the employees of Holland College, the only community college on the Island. At their recent annual meeting the employees passed a resolution condemning the federal Government's Canadian Jobs Strategy Program.
They expressed a number of important concerns about the direction the Government has taken on job creation. The new emphasis on the private sector to provide skills training is not working in Atlantic Canada. The private sector cannot provide either adequate or comprehensive technical education.
In fact this backward job-creation program is hurting community colleges and depriving young Canadians of proper skills training. Holland College has already been forced to lay off some of its staff, and this trend is expected to continue.
Only the Government's incompetence is to blame for a job-creation strategy that results in lay-offs at those colleges where employment skills are supposed to be taught. 1 urge the Government to rethink its short-sighted attempts to privatize job training and put the funding back into community colleges where it belongs.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians love their country, and because we cherish who we are and the resources we possess, it is worth defending.
Members of our dedicated Armed Forces, and Canadians over-all, have waited 16 long years for a caring and responsive Government to reply to the genuine concerns about our nation's defence and military commitments to our allies. I commend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) on
June 9, 1987

his White Paper entitled Challenge and Commitment, A Defence Policy for Canada.
The White Paper has been heralded by members of the Armed Forces and our allies for the Government's decision to modernize and purchase essential equipment for our land, sea, and air forces.
Canadians and our allies have faith and trust in a Conservative Government that cares about the defence of our great country and freedom throughout the world.



END OF MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION OFF QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS-POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and his British Columbia provincial counterpart announced the end of a 14-year moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia.
That moratorium had been imposed because of the environmental and ecological threat which could be posed by such activity. The Minister is aware that those same considerations for that marine life still exist.
The Government is also aware that the Queen Charlotte Islands are the traditional homeland of the Haida people, who have expressed their concern over this development.
A recent full day's debate in the House of Commons resulted in the unanimous recognition of the need to protect the Queen Charlotte Islands.
1 trust that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will respect the will of Parliament as he goes forward with this policy. The people of British Columbia know that with good will on the part of all participants, we can develop our resources while protecting our environment, particularly one of the treasures in this country, the Queen Charlotte Islands. It is an area that is the habitat of one-third of the nesting birds on the West Coast, with limitless aquaculture and one of the great rain forests in the world. I want to draw this to the attention of the Minister of Energy.



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during the past few years Canadians have demonstrated their
interest and support in preserving the natural environment of South Moresby and Lyell Islands off British Columbia's northern coast.
However, today Canadians learned that the federal Government, along with the Government of British Columbia, plans to support exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas in this area by lifting the moratorium that has barred offshore exploration north of Vancouver Island since the early 1970s.
This callous action will jeopardize the sensitive ecological balance of the area, provide a serious threat to the West Coast fishery, and place the visitor potential of this pristine environment at risk. It completely ignores the fact that this area, now open for oil and gas drilling, is under aboriginal claim.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) has said that various jurisdictional problems have been resolved. However, what about the ecological, environmental and cultural issues that originally precipitated the implementation of the moratorium? These have not been resolved. Simply because the multinational oil companies have lobbied successfully is no reason to sell out this unique ecological area to the highest bidder.

[ Translation]



POVERTY


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: These past few days, Mr. Speaker, The Ottawa Citizen and Montreal's l.e Devoir have published a series of articles on poverty.
Mr. Speaker, the statistics we see are alarming. Descriptions of the day-to-day lives of between 800 and 1,000 people in our national capital and the poverty which prevails in Eastern Montreal are the symptoms of our society's deep malaise. Such poverty can be seen throughout our country.
I believe that all Members of the House, men and women alike, can only deplore this very serious situation. The elderly had long since been considered as being the poorest members of our society, but things have changed indeed.
Poverty today, besides being more prevalent among women, is the lot of all kinds of people who are often very young, between 14 and 20, people suffering from psychiatric disorders, heads of single-parent families. All these people have precious little chance of ever improving their living conditions.
Many women who are alone and raising a family are caught in a vicious circle. If they manage to find work for which they draw less than the minimum wage, they are no longer entitled to assistance for medical expenses. They have to work an ungodly number of hours barely to make ends meet. Other groups suffering from poverty experience the same difficulties when they try to better themselves.

June 9, 1987
We are not doing enough to help them. Mr. Speaker, this is why I believe the federal Government, in co-operation with the provinces and the municipalities, must find a solution to the poverty problem in the very near future.



TRIBUTE TO FRANCOIS PERROUX, FRENCH ECONOMIST

Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: 

SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the advantages of nuclear propulsion over diesel fuel for icebreakers operating in the Arctic are self-evident and incontestable. The only rational argument for the selection of diesel fuel for the proposed Polar 8 ice-breaker was that it might be uneconomical to build fuelling facilities for one vessel which would otherwise be dependent on foreign fueling.
With the recent announcement by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) that Canada is to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, fueling facilities will now be built in Canada. Therefore, there remains no reason why our Polar 8 ice-breaker should not be nuclear propelled. The Government ought now to reconsider its earlier decision before we get locked into a poor choice.



REFUGEES


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of the national week of protest against



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, in 1981, when the Canadian Parliament under a Liberal Government passed an Act to establish the Canada
June 9, 1987

Post Corporation, the objective was improved services, better labour-management relations and a reduced deficit.
After six years, under a Conservative Government, the objective has become a reduced postal service, accelerated deficit reduction and a threatened strike.
The Conservative Government has completely ignored the recommendation of the Marchment Commission to give the Canada Post Corporation until 1990 to solve its deficit problem.
Why accelerate deficit reduction? We are now facing a strike, and according to the report of the conciliator, there could be violence in the workplace. This is how the Conservative Government solves the problems of Canadian society.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the city of Val d'Or celebrated the inauguration of the new regional air terminal of the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region and northern Quebec on Friday, June 5, with the coming of the Air France Concorde.
The big white bird came from New York to land on one of the longest runaways in Canada. Twenty-three years after being designed, this French and British supersonic airplane still provokes wonder and astonishment. The artisans of this event were the airport general manager, Mr. Daniel Bleau, of Transport Canada, and Dr. Alfred Lomsy of the Association pour le developpement de I'anesthesie-analgesie en regions eloignees, who is also from Val d'Or.
This was quite a challenge for northern residents. Schools were closed, buses were chartered everywhere in Abitibi for the event, and 10,000 people were able to watch this magnifi-cient plane.
One hundred Abitibi residents made the trip from Val d'Or to Mirabel on the Concorde, returning that same evening on an Air Canada flight organized by Mr. Jean-Claude Tetrault, director.
The management of Air France and the Concorde pilots will be able to say throughout the world: Yes, we went to Val d'Or, in Abitibi, and we shall go back there because the people are wonderful.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, as has been brought up in the House a number of times over the last little while by my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), and by the Hon. Member for Yorkton -Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is having a serious problem with its budget. Right now there exists a situation in which in the first two months of this year the Government has managed to spend $100 million more than was allocated for the entire fiscal year.
The Government has announced that it is cutting back and freezing funds for native people who rely on the Department's programs. In addition, the people of the Northwest Territories are adversely affected. One-fifth of the Territories' annual budget comes from these funds.
We must have a public inquiry into this situation. We must know what amounts have been spent. We must know who authorized the amounts. We must have some mechanism to ensure that native people and northerners do not suffer from the Government's incompetence.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, in October of 1986 the Government announced that it would join with its Saskatchewan counterpart to upgrade the Yellowhead Highway.
1 would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that on Friday, June 5, I was a witness to the $22 million agreement which will set in motion restoration and widening of this vital northern route.
The upgrading of the Yellowhead will not only improve access to Canada's northern industrial and resource development areas, it will also provide a safer, more efficient highway for those Canadians travelling in the west.
1 know that in Saskatoon alone this project will have a significant effect on highway safety, eliminating two particularly hazardous traffic areas, the Eighth Street traffic circle and Circle Drive, and a narrow strip of highway on the south end of the city.
I wish to commend the federal and provincial Governments for their ongoing co-operation in developing this vital tourist and commercial highway.

June 9, 1987
5. O. 21 TRADE



EFFECT OF IMPORT REGULATIONS ON TENT MAKERS

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the damage that is being done to a number of small industries in Canada which depend on imports which they manufacture for sale. I am referring to items such as shirts, neckties, clothing and, latterly, tents. Tent manufacturers, like the others I mentioned, have to compete with their finished products against foreign imports. The products they want to use to manufacture their goods are subject to heavy duty, if they wish to bring them in from abroad.
I submit that when an industry cannot obtain a Canadian manufacturer that is comparable in terms of its product and its appropriateness for manufacturing a product, it should be allowed to import duty-free. This case has been made by manufacturer after manufacturer. They are now beginning to go out of business.
Tent manufacturers arc in very grave jeopardy. I urge the Government to look at their situation and to take steps now, where foreign competition is so serious, to allow them to import the goods that they need to manufacture their products here in Canada.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at my home in Charny, I received an envelope on which the sender was identified as being the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). The envelope contained a letter printed on official House of Commons paper, from the office of the Leader of the NDP.
The letter is essentially a political one and contains a message about the Canadian tax system. It also contains a card addressed to the Hon. Member's office, no postage required, which will be used to make lists of addresses of Canadian citizens. The addressee is asked simply to sign at the bottom of the following form, which says, and I quote: "I want you to know what 1 think about fair taxes and jobs". And there is a space for the names and addresses of those who complete this form.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the socialist Party is increasingly using Members' privileges for his own Party's political purposes.
Mr. Speaker, this simple letter, if sent to five and a half million addresses in Canada, will cost taxpayers $550,000. It is
high time Canadians judged the honesty of these socialists. They must give an explanation today, here in the House.
I wonder, is it me or is it just the weather that is getting on the nerves of those-gaymocrats, Mr. Speaker.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government talks a lot about multicultural policy, but when the time comes to deliver it is noticeably absent. I refer specifically to the Government's lack of action in respect of the five hundredth anniversary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus in North America.
1 have here a letter dated March 18, 1984, from former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau naming Alex Roncari of the City of Hamilton the chairman of the quincentennial celebration. More than three years have elapsed, and the Government will not even commit itself to having a committee to look at what Canada will do to celebrate the five hundredth anniversary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus in North America.
E facile per parlare di multiculturalismo, ma quando arrivo il tempo di fare qualche' cosa, questo governo non fa niente.
It is easy to talk about it. 1 want the chairman from Hamilton to be recognized and allowed to continue in his work, not stopped by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) as he is doing at the moment.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, many Members might be aware of the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission is wrapping up its hearings in Ottawa this week in respect of the application of railways to run cabooseless trains. I want Hon. Members to be aware-and perhaps they are not-of the seriousness of the decision the CTC would be making if it decided to do what the railways wanted and allowed cabooseless trains to run.
The railways have argued sometimes on the basis of the American experience. However, if the CTC were to decide to allow cabooseless trains in Canada, we would have a situation quite different from that in the United States where only 25
June 9, 1987

per cent of trains are actually running without cabooses because of the way States have jurisdiction over transportation and the way collective bargaining is involved in the issue.
What would happen here, when this industry is primarily federal, if the CTC were to decide to allow cabooseless trains is that we would have, carte blanche, cabooseless trains running from one end of the country to the other on the basis of limited American experience and other arguments that the railways have made which fail to take into account the need for the human touch when it comes to safety on trains running through Canada.
I hope the CTC will make the right decision, not the wrong one, and forbid the running of cabooseless trains.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. At my request, the Members of Parliament for Gander-Twillingate and Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe have consulted with officials at External Affairs, and indeed with French officials in Paris, and have confirmed that the Government of France has issued permits to two giant French oil companies-Elf Aquitaine and Total-to drill for oil and gas in over 20,000 square kilometres of Canadian waters.
In response to the investigation of my two Members, the Department of External Affairs this morning issued a weak-kneed protest.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was aware of what was happening when the President of France was in the country last month, and why did he not raise a claim for Canadian sovereignty and protest this matter with the President of France when he was in the country'?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is correct. We have been advised that the French Government has granted joint exploration permits to two French companies to explore for oil off the coast of St. Pierre-Miquelon. Instructions have been issued to the Canadian Ambassador to protest the granting of these permits.
1 should say as well, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Right Hon. Member is aware, that under both Canadian law and international law activities related to the exploration and exploitation of resources on the Canadian shelf may be undertaken only with the express authority of the Canadian Government.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister takes the time to read what the Canadian Government sent to France this morning, he will recognize that it was a mealy-mouthed weak-kneed protest.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Having sold out our East Coast fishermen, the Government is now selling out East Coast oil and gas workers.


CANADIAN POSITION-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PROTEST
John Napier Turner: will put my question in terms that will get the point right home to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why didn't the Prime Minister of our country tell the President of France that France has no more right drilling off the coast of Newfoundland than it has to drilling rights in the Province of Alberta? Why hasn't that message been delivered?
Would the Deputy Prime Minister relay a message directly from this Parliament to the Prime Minister in Venice to say to President Mitterrand, when he is sitting across the table from him, to stop that unlawful drilling in Canadian waters?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is advocating the same kind of gunboat diplomacy as the New Democratic Party. His rhetoric is sounding almost as shrill. I might remind the Right Hon. Member that last year, in October, 1986, a similar application was made and Canada did protest. No drilling was taking place at that particular time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They really listened, eh?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In reply to the latter part of the Hon. Member's question, my understanding is that the Prime Minister did meet with Prime Minister Chirac earlier this day.
1 have not had a report on the outcome of that meeting but I am sure that that will be forthcoming and I am also sure that this matter would have been raised.


John Napier Turner: I am not going to be diverted by the Deputy Prime Minister. We are not advocating gunboat diplomacy. We are advocating that this Government stand up for Canada's rights, that it show some guts, some backbone and some forthrightness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It is absolutely unbelievable that a European nation should pretend to exercise sovereignty rights over our waters while this Government does nothing about it but make a feeble protest.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh. oh!

June 9, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Be honest, John.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John Napier Turner: And the only noise we hear in this House is the flapping of the fins of the trained seals behind the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would put his question. Thank you.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of empty wind and fin-flapping over there.


An Hon. Member:: Be careful now.


John Napier Turner: The Deputy Prime Minister may feel temporarily secure in the numbers behind him, but the people of Canada do not feel secure in the way his Government is protecting our sovereignty. That is quite clear.
What specific action will the Government take to prevent the French from exercising pseudo-sovereignty rights over Canadian waters'? When, how, and what action will be taken?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know it is encouraging for all Members of the House to notice that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition can rally his troops over something.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We hope that that might enhance his own personal security because many of us are very concerned about his own personal security.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My colleagues behind me are saying that they want the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to stay.
Some of the-


Mr. Rossi:: We're not sure that Canadians want you though.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Bring back Erik.


Mr. Shields:: Oh, Sheila, be quiet.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister could get to the answer to the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has gotten carried away with some of his rhetoric. He may want to go back to check what he has said because some of the things he said are totally inaccurate.
As 1 said earlier, we are talking about a disputed area, and under both Canadian law and international law the activities related to exploration and exploitation of natural resources undertaken on the Canadian shelf can only be undertaken with the express consent of the Canadian Government.


RIGHTS OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Accord was supposed to give to Newfoundland, not France, the right to drill and explore in the waters off Newfoundland out to the 200-mile limit. Now the French Government, apparently over the objections of the Canadian Government, has issued drilling permits to two companies in France allowing them to drill out to 200 miles and to as close as 30 miles of the Newfoundland coast.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government will do to end once, and for all, the issuing of these permits by the French Government in order to live up to the spirit of the Atlantic Accord and protect the rights of Newfoundlanders?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question. I indicated that a forma! protest has been launched. The Prime Minister of France and the Prime Minister of Canada met earlier today and I am sure this was a matter that was discussed.
1 should indicate as well that Canadian petroleum companies too have been granted permits in this disputed area. Really what is happening here is that both countries, because it is a disputed area, have been granting permits. However, as of yet, no drilling has taken place by either side.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, it does not matter if it is France or the United States, if it is fish, lumber or oil, the word is out: this Government is made up of a bunch of pushovers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realize that in this case France is taunting Canada? We announced 7,000 metric tonnes of fish for next year for France. Two weeks ago France announced it would catch 27,000 metric tonnes. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we say no to the drilling and France now says yes to the drilling in Canadian waters. Will the Government simply sit back and watch as the French fill their bellies with our fish and their tanks with our oil?
June 9, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply remind the Hon. Member that in October of 1986 there was a similar kind of application made. Perhaps it was part and parcel of this same application. Canada protested at that time and drilling was not undertaken. Perhaps the proof is in the pudding.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The proof is in the drilling.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact of the matter is that Canada did protest very vigorously and drilling did not take place.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to understand very clearly what the Government has done about this important situation. With respect to extraterritoriality Canadians will remember the Government has already yielded to the Americans on the softwood lumber issue. With respect to sovereignty it has yielded to the French on fishing off the coast of Newfoundland. Did the Deputy Prime Minister say that, notwithstanding earlier Canadian protests, the French have gone ahead and made the decision to drill in our waters?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Leader of the socialist Party is wrong on three counts.


John Edward Broadbent: It would be encouraging if the Government would not only claim it is right but actually do something for once in the interests of Canada. That is what we would like to see the Government do.


CANADIAN PROTEST
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says no, the Government did not protest before. 1 thought he said just a moment ago to someone in the Liberal Party that the Government sent a telegram last year protesting drilling in these waters.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The drilling did not take place.


John Edward Broadbent: Presumably if that protest meant anything last year it should mean something this year, unless the Government has abandoned its position. The Minister has now said the Government sent another telegram. Can he tell us what was said, and, if the Government of France plans to ignore it and go ahead and drill in our waters what does the Government of Canada intend to do to stand up for Canadian interests?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada is the same. It is a disputed area. The fact of the matter is that I have indicated a formal protest
Oral Questions
has been launched. Second, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of France met earlier this day and I can only presume this matter was discussed.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER BE CONTACTED AT VENICE SUMMIT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, while they met earlier this day they could have discussed any one of a half dozen matters that come up at a summit. The people of Canada would like to know for sure that they discussed this important question. Will the Minister check with the Prime Minister in Venice and report back to the House tomorrow not only about what took place in that conversation but with assurances that in this case, if not in softwood or fishing, the Canadian Government will make a decision in the interests of Canada for a change and not in the interests of France?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the socialists had not been so busy preparing his questions he would have heard the answer 1 gave to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I indicated that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of France had met and 1 was awaiting a report. I would certainly report back to the House when 1 received it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, after the last seven questions, right about now Canadians are wondering if there is any sight more pitiful than the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada cowering, and expecting the people of Canada to cower with him, before the Treaty of Paris, a 224-year old treaty, one which was signed 104 years before Canada became a nation.


An Hon. Member:: You are sick.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has been very patient. The questions have been long, argumentative, and repetitive. In the interests of other Members who, I know, are waiting to ask questions, 1 would ask the Hon. Member to get to the point and put the question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister not realize that these are not colonial times? France is not an imperial power. Canada is not some colony of a far-away mother country. Will he today announce measures to ensure that no other nation other than Canada will issue permits for companies to explore and drill for oil in sovereign Canadian waters? Will he do that today?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that is the reason for our efforts to get this matter put to arbitration, the action of the French Government in issuing a permit to drill for oil and gas in disputed waters. This is a dispute between Canada and France as to who has the jurisdiction over those waters, as to whose continental shelf they come within, whether it is France through St. Pierre and

June 9, 1987
Oral Questions
Miquelon, or whether it is Canada. As a part of the effort to get that issue settled we are negotiating with France to send this matter to arbitration, which is the only way in which it can be settled peacefully and in accordance with international law. In the meantime our ambassador in Paris is making an official protest to the Government of France. If they follow the example of last year there will be no drilling under these permits. That is the position.
Our policy is firm and we can assure the House that it will continue to be firm, firmer than the position of the previous Government because it took no action to settle this issue in the 20 years it was in power.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT MEASURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the President of France was so impressed with his private meeting with the Hon. Member for St. John's West that he promptly went home and had his Government issue two permits to drill off Newfoundland in sovereign Canadian waters. That is how impressed he was by that Minister who has shown all the backbone of a jellyfish.
1 ask the Minister of fisheries, transport, Canada-France, offshore oil and gas, what measures is his Government going to take to ensure that no companies other than Canadian companies drill in sovereign Canadian waters? Have you got anything besides flippant words to offer the people of Canada and your fellow Newfoundlanders in this regard?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if shouting and braggadocio were effective I would put the hon. gentleman out offshore from St. Pierre and Miquelon and blow the French to kingdom come!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In the meantime a further meeting is set for Paris on June 24 and June 25 of this year to continue negotiations on fishery quotas. Other meetings are going to be held on the boundary.
The President of France was told of the firm and fixed position of the Government of Canada with reference to these questions off the East Coast of Newfoundland. He understands our position. Naturally they are trying to respond to the action we took in barring their vessels from Canadian ports, which action we arc not going to change. That is action we took. The predecessor Liberal Government did nothing, but now they are in opposition they are like lions, tigers. They are like walruses.


Mr. Langdon:: That is a hard act to follow, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Why bother?


Jack Wendele Shields: Good point. Sit down.


MINES AND MINING
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the management of Gaspe Mines announced yesterday it was closing the Murdochville Mine. More than 400 people will be laid off as a result of this decision, which will have a disastrous impact on the community. What does the Government intend to do about this?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Government sympathizes with the people of Murdochville. Second, three weeks ago 1 had a meeting with my colleague, the Quebec Minister of Mines. The Minister, in accordance with his responsibility for Quebec's natural resources, was negotiating with Noranda. He asked the Canadian Government, as part of the Ottawa-Quebec agreement on mining, to sharing 50 per cent of the cost of reimbursing the loan, since negotiations were going along those lines. 1 was delighted to be able to confirm the Canadian Government's interest in these negotiations and also our decision to pay 50 per cent of the cost of interest payments.
1 can assure you that as far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned, we have responded positively to Quebec's request.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Minister if it is sufficient simply to offer one's good intentions, or is it not necessary to take leadership in an area like this and try to create a situation, through economic development and progress, that will give to that community a chance for the future? Surely it is time the Government started to take that leadership instead of sitting back and letting the private sector take the lead all the time.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, leadership for the Government does not mean doing something it should not do. The first responsibility of the Government is to recognize that natural resources are first the responsibility of the provinces. With that in mind we have always agreed to work with the Quebec Government because it is its responsibility first.
That is why Minister Savoie has had negotiations with Societe Noranda. When we were asked to participate in that we responded positively. I do not think that leadership of the country means that we should go against provincial rights.
June 9, 1987


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM INDIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in our Gallery of a parliamentary delegation from India led by the Honourable Mr. B. Shankaranand, Minister of Water Resources.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to believe that for two days following the release of the White Paper we have had neither the Minister of National Defence nor the Associate Minister of National Defence in the House to answer questions. Now we do not even have the Acting Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has had to remind Members in the past that undue comment about the absence of any Member, any Leader of a Party, or any cabinet Minister is not looked upon favourably in this place. The reason for that is that Members, cabinet Ministers and Leaders of Parties have to be elsewhere a good deal of the time doing the jobs which they must do. I ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Acting Defence Minister said that without Canadian nuclear subs in the Arctic we are inviting potential adversaries. He said that with them there would be no implied invitation but any intrusion would be an act of provocation.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Acting Defence Minister that the presence of an American sub in Canada's Arctic would constitute an act of provocation?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to thank the Hon. Member for the question or not. Surely he is not seriously trying to imply that an ally of our country would create provocation in our waters. Most certainly any activity of allied vessels would be in consultation with the Minister of National Defence.
The Arctic Ocean is not Canadian waters, and I assure the Hon. Member that our submarines-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


T.A. Bud Bradley: The Arctic Ocean is not Canadian waters. The Canadian waters which are in the Arctic Ocean are within our
Oral Questions
territorial waters. Submarines can go in the Arctic without being in Canadian waters.


POSSIBLE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMARINE CREWS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary. 1 asked this question yesterday. If the sovereignty issue in Canada's Arctic is essentially a legal question, what instructions will be given to the crews of Canada's nuclear-powered submarines in the event that they run into submarines from other powers in what we consider to be Canadian waters and they consider to be international waters? What are we asking our submarines to do in that event?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, that question is certainly hypothetical. However, I am sure that if our submarines were in those waters and identified submarines of any other nation they would log the location, the time, and the character of the submarine, which information might be utilized in international courts in disputes over waters.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. First we saw the spectacle of our northern cod stocks being sold out to the French. Now there is oil drilling in Canadian waters. 1 do not think the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government understand the serious nature of what is happening.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister, at least to indicate how serious this is, recall Ambassador Bouchard from France for consultations on this matter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a repetition of an earlier question. 1 have stated the Government's position which has also been stated by the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I have outlined the actions that are being taken and 1 will keep the House informed of the actions taken and results of the meeting which I am sure the Prime Minister of France and the Prime Minister of Canada have had.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER BE CONTACTED AT VENICE SUMMIT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that. The Prime Minister is in Venice at the moment with the leader of France. We will excuse the Deputy Prime Minister from Question Period. He can go to his office, telephone to Venice, and tell

June 9, 1987
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister of this country that Parliament and the people of Canada are extremely concerned about the actions announced by the French.
Will the Prime Minister enter discussions with the leadership of France while he is at the Venice conference? Later today the Deputy Prime Minister can report to the House on the context of that conversation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's suggestion I am sure he understands that that is not necessary. The Prime Minister of Canada considers this to be a very important initiative. I do not think he needs any prompting from the Hon. Member or me to do what is in the best interests of Canada.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, while the Ministers are out selling their budget for National Defence, the growth of which has been reduced over 15 years, to the Canadian people, I will direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board to whom the buck was passed yesterday by the Acting Minister.
The Government continues to treat members of the Canadian Armed Forces shabbily. First it was an attack on retirees by taking away their unemployment insurance. Now it is attacking members of the Armed Forces in Europe by cutting their cost of living pay and their exchange rate pay.
In light of the protests from Canadian Forces in Europe will the Minister undertake to review this issue by sending Statistics Canada back to the drawing board to make a more accurate assessment of living costs and exchange rates in Canada? Never mind the system. The Government can do it if it has the will to do it and if it cares for Canadian Armed Forces personnel.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that this Government is the first Government in many years to stand by our Armed Forces and ensure that they are well treated, well equipped, and able to do the job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, an index has been developed to equate the standard of living on posts abroad to that in the national capital region. That index is revised periodically. It has been a longstanding practice and has been applied at this time as in other periods.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has chosen to use the same old inaccurate rhetoric about
defence spending. That story will be laid wide open. I hope he is ready for an education.


EXCHANGE RATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Dragoons and other units will be coming home from Germany this summer and the 8th Hussars and others will be replacing them. My question for the Minister is serious and I do not want an answer about your system. Will the Government correct this injustice with exchange rates and cost of living in Europe, or will he treat the people who are going there this summer in the same shabby manner as he was treating those who are coming home? Will the Minister withdraw his order of May 1 when he took 15 per cent of their pay package away from those personnel and give it back to them? That is the question, and a serious one.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are treating our personnel abroad, whether they are in the Armed Forces or the foreign service, in an equitable and decent manner. If the Hon. Member really believes that the methodology of the survey is faulty, I will be happy to look into it and ensure that the system is working in an equitable way so that people are paid on an equitable basis, whether they be in Germany or anywhere else in the world.


IMPORTATION OF MILK PRODUCTS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
In the area of multilateral trade last year the Government took decisive action to limit the importation of dry blends of products containing 50 per cent or more milk solids. Since there has been some evidence recently that some importers may be importing mixtures with slightly less than the 50 per cent limit of milk solids, what action has been or will be taken to stop this apparent disrespect of the intent of the import control list?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that my Department is working very closely with the Department of National Revenue on this alleged skimmed milk scam. The allegations are that skimmed milk mixed with salt is being imported into the country as soup mix, in contravention of the Export and Import Permits Act.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that investigations are continuing. There has been a seizure of skimmed milk as a result of them. There has been increased vigilance at the ports of entry to ensure that no such contraventions occur.
June 9, 1987

Oral Questions


END OF MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS DRILLING OFF QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Government's decision to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in British Columbia shocked and surprised British Columbia Indians, fishermen, and environmentalists. The Government had not used the moratorium years to do the necessary oceanographical and biological studies to determine the long-term environmental risks. Now it is acting with haste and expediency.
Will the Minister assure the House that no drilling will take place until long-term studies have been done and the data analysed, and until public hearings have been held on how the drilling will proceed and who has jurisdiction?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that people in British Columbia were very pleased with yesterday's announcement. Second, the announcement is intended to make it known that both Governments have accepted the recommendations of the task force on those matters. Third, we have committed ourselves to negotiate an accord with the provincial Government. That will answer some aspects of his question.


James Douglas Manly: The Hon. Minister of Energy will soon see how pleased the people of British Columbia are with this deal, which is a sell-out of the environment.


IMPACT OF DRILLING ON FISHERY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell the House what studies have been done on the impact of any drilling on the fishery? What will be the impact on aboriginal rights, which extend out into the ocean shelf? What will be the real impact of this drilling?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I feel the situation is quite clear. Governments have agreed to set up a committee to consider environmental issues. Both Governments have accepted the vast majority, that is to say, almost all the recommendations, especially on environmental issues.
Thirdly, the Government has accepted to negotiate an agreement such as the one we signed with Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. Within the framework of these agreements, any kind of future development in whatever shape or form, will not take place without public hearings, as was the case with the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia projects.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Canada Post, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. After reducing postal service in many ways, the Government is preparing to shut down the postal service completely by forcing postal workers into a strike that they do not want and no Canadians want.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask his Minister responsible for Canada Post to stop acting like someone who is betting on a horse at the race-track? Yesterday the Minister said about a possible postal strike: "If I were to put odds on it I would say it does not look that good". We want the Government to get involved in settling that strike. Will it carry out these negotiations with the union at arm's length, watching as a witness, or will the Deputy Prime Minister order his Minister to get involved and settle this before it gets worse?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the conciliation report has just been brought down. I believe there is a clear indication by both sides that there is a desire to re-engage in negotiations. I am sure the Hon. Member would want that negotiating process to take place. We encourage it and we hope a strike can be avoided. We will certainly do everything in our power to assist in facilitating both parties to get back to the bargaining table. That is the way this issue can best be settled for all Canadians and the workers particularly.


QUERY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL INTERVENE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that the Government is keeping an eye on the situation. That is all it is saying.
How can the Government allow the situation to deteriorate further and end up with a total breakdown in postal services? How can the Minister be satisfied with watching the game from the side, comfortably seated by the boards, without realizing that the time has come for him to get on the ice and get involved. We will end up with a strike and the Government will be responsible for it.
When will the Government finally decide to intervene in these negotiations which are a stand still?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure 1 do not have to explain to my hon. friend that the collective bargaining process in Canada is well entrenched and recognized by Canada Post, the Minister, the union involved, and the leadership of that union. The collective bargaining process in

June 9, 1987
Oral Questions
Canada does not call for intervention by the Government at this time. On behalf of which side would the Hon. Member ask the Government to intervene?


SOLIGAZ PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Quebec Minister of Energy stated recently that if the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline is not converted to natural gas liquids, the Soligaz $250 million project will be in jeopardy, and he asked the Minister to intervene at the National Energy Board.
My question is this: Did the Minister make the importance of that conversion to Montreal-East and workers in Montreal-East known to the National Energy Board? Did he intervene, and if not, why?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, in the appropriate terms, yes.


INQUIRY HOW GOVERNMENT HAS INTERVENED
Robert Toupin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
"In the appropriate terms, yes". I would like to ask the Minister to tell us, since he stated last week he would not intervene with the National Energy Board, when he did intervene, how and in which direction? Can he give a specific answer to that question?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I used the phrase "in the appropriate terms", because clearly the Minister of Energy may not intervene in the Board's decision process. But he can make the Board aware of the importance of such decisions, to ensure in particular that the system works in a fair way. And it is in that sense, within my responsibilities and my powers, that 1 did so Mr. Speaker.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As a result of the decision yesterday by the United States Supreme Court on the subject of acid rain, both the Ontario Government and the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain have indicated they will be henceforth concentrating their efforts to control cross-border acid rain emissions on lobbying of the United States Congress.
Will the Minister advise the House if the Canadian Government is presently lobbying the United States Congress on the subject of acid rain emissions? And, specifically, what efforts are we making to persuade United States Congressmen and Senators to pass very tough and strict acid rain emission control standards?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court, in effect, defeated the efforts of eight of the States in the northeastern tier to get a court-imposed solution to the acid rain problem. In a nutshell, the case was decided on a technicality surrounding a letter which had been written by a previous head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In any event, from a Canadian point of view, we lost on procedural grounds, which indicates to us, as a Government, that we Canadians cannot count on the American courts to press our case in the United States. If we are to have a solution to the acid rain problem on a transboundary basis, we are going to have to find it on a Government-to-Government basis. That is why we are concentrating our efforts, in the first instance, on the U.S. administration.
I note with pleasure that on May 26 the U.S. President-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -reconfirmed the position he expressed on the floor of the House of Commons in favour of giving consideration to a bilateral accord. In tandem with that-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -we are using all legal and diplomatic instruments to press Congress-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -for a legislative approach to the acid rain issue.
June 9, 1987


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I should start by thanking the afterdinner speaker who just read.
My question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. It concerns the Government's attempt to hide facts once again. Every month the Minister publishes a leaflet which is entitled Research and Development Bulletin, and these documents usually contain the names of people receiving government contracts in R and D, and usually statistics by region concerning research and development. Can the Minister explain to this House why it is, starting this month, this publication will no longer carry statistics by region on research and development? Is the Government's record so shameful it is now trying to hide it?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the Hon. Member that I have no intention of practicing censorship, I am not that kind of woman.
1 suspended information on research and development statistics because they were confusing. But in my capacity as Minister in charge of Statistics Canada, data from Statistics Canada can always be used because they cover the overall picture of what is being done at the research and development level.


CANADIAN PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW TRUTH
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister. She just stated statistics on overall research are available. Now, she knows full well her document gave them by region. Why does the Minister still insist the disclosure of information to the public is confusing? Is the truth so confusing? Is it not true Canadians have a right to know the facts and draw their own conclusions in that matter?


Monique Vézina: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the statistics that were published by my Department were only sketchy, segmental data, and were misleading. This government wants to supply overall information in the most genuine way possible. This is why Statistics Canada will be able to supply you with all the data concerning research and development.
Unemployment Insurance



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-50, an Act respecting the treatment of pension payments in determining certain unemployment insurance benefit entitlements and to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Allmand (p. 6872).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m. the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) had the floor.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, when we broke for lunch, I had been asking what kind of worker the Government was discriminating against with the November 1984 regulations. What kind of person did the Government see as ripping off the unemployment insurance system? I read a letter from a worker who had been paying into unemployment insurance for 38 years and had never filed a claim, then found he had been disqualified. I would like to read another letter. My correspondent states, and I quote:
I would like some information on U.l.C. claims with reference to military annuities. 1 was retired due to my age in 1979 after serving 25 years in the Canadian Forces (sea). My gross pension is $685.00 which is very difficult for my wife and I to live on.
With the employment situation as it is in the Cowichan Valley it is next to impossible at my age to get a full-time job. 1 had part-time work until last month and due to cut-backs was laid off and am unable to draw U.l.C. benefits.
As I have been paying into this long before January, 1986, I was wondering if 1 will be able to draw again.
Thank you for looking into this matter for me.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I am sure all Hon. Members would like to extend the courtesy of being heard to their colleague. The Chair would certainly like to hear the Hon. Member as well.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, even if my colleagues did not wish to extend the courtesy of listening to me, perhaps they could extend the courtesy to those workers who have been discriminated against with this kind of legislation. The working people of Canada deserve at least to have their case heard by this House rather than that it be drowned by this babble of conversation taking place at the present time.
We have to ask how Bill C-50 addresses the injustice perpetrated upon the working people. How does it address the discrimination which has resulted in these people paying into the unemployment insurance system all these years and when it comes to their turn to draw benefits, they find they are

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
disqualified by reason of the fact they are in receipt of a pension? What does Bill C-50 do? It goes one-third of the way toward justice. Over 50,000 people were affected by the regulations of November, 1984 which hit severance pay and pension income and counted those incomes as earned income for the purposes of unemployment insurance. Fifty thousand people were affected by those regulations. When we study this Bill we find that 33,000 people will still be discriminated against. Every year 33,000 people will find they are disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance because of the provisions of this Bill.
This Bill is illogical and unfair. To illustrate, if you can imagine, Madam Speaker, two people who retire from the Armed Forces at the same time after putting in approximately the same number of years. One of those people is able to get a short-term job. He works a certain number of weeks and then that job runs out and he is laid off. However, he is able to collect unemployment insurance because he has worked enough weeks to qualify. His pension income does not count against him for the purposes of drawing unemployment insurance.
The other person gets out of the Armed Forces at the same time as his buddy. He looks for work but is not able to find any. He is not able to find even temporary work, and he is not able to claim unemployment insurance. Instead, he is told that his pension income has to count as earned income and therefore he does not qualify. Where is the justice in that? Where is the logic?
I think we have to realize that pension income is a form of saved income from previous employment. It is unfair to treat it differently from other types of savings. It is unfair to treat pension income differently, when it comes to unemployment insurance, from the way we treat RRSPs or investments, for example.
The Conservative Government says that it does not want to use the unemployment insurance system to finance retirement. There can be a legitimate debate on that issue. Personally, I think that when we have such a high rate of unemployment among young people it might make sense to encourage early retirement. If having people go on unemployment insurance for a year will encourage early retirement and get people out of the labour force so that younger people can come up and get a job, then that makes sense to me. But the Conservatives say that they are opposed to that principle.
Even if we accept the argument of the Conservatives that it is wrong to use unemployment insurance as an inducement to early retirement, surely they do not need to use these types of Draconian measures, these types of unfair measures, to discourage people from taking it. They could use the job search provisions that are already in the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that anyone retiring and in receipt of a pension income would have to be going through regular job search before he or she could collect unemployment insurance.
The provisions are already in place. Why do they go to these lengths to discriminate against older workers in the way that they are doing?
The November, 1984, changes were intended to cut the deficit. But why are we cutting the deficit on the backs of older workers, many of whom are retired service personnel, Public Service people and people from the private sector? Why are we trying to cut the deficit on their backs when the unemployment insurance fund will be running a $1.6 billion surplus in 198788? Why are we picking on older workers who are at their most vulnerable, people in the age bracket of 45 to 60 who still need to work in order to pay their mortgages and to finance their children's educations? Why are these people being singled out for this type of unfair attack? It is all of a piece with the Government's earlier attempt to put a cap on increases to the Old Age Security pension which it almost got away with if it had not been for a few hundred thousand seniors who cried foul two years ago. Studies have shown that only one worker in ten who is laid off at that critical age is going to be able to find work again. Thus only one worker in ten is really able to benefit from this type of situation.
In addition, this type of legislation discriminates very seriously against people in the poorer provinces. It discriminates against workers in areas of high unemployment, in the Maritimes, Newfoundland, British Columbia, and in certain parts of northern Quebec and Ontario. But it discriminates particularly against those in the Maritimes and British Columbia where a large number of retired service personnel live. This type of discrimination is unfair. It is bitterly resented by these people who have served their country.
This legislation admits that there was an error made in November of 1984. It admits that those regulations were wrong and poorly thought out. But it is a half-hearted admission. We are not taking the type of action that is needed to provide justice for these working people.
Therefore, along with my colleagues, I will be opposing this legislation. It is illogical. It is unfair. It is contradictory. I do not understand how the Government can introduce such legislation. I do not understand how government Members can stand up and speak in support of it. I do not understand how members of the Liberal Party can say that they will vote for it. I hope that the least we will get from the Liberal Party is a bit of a split and some of them will think about this and vote with us against it.
In short, this legislation is wrong. We oppose it completely.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to be able to join in the debate today on the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. These amendments deal with two areas: the treatment of unemployment insurance in relation to pension income, and the treatment of unemployment insurance in relation to severance pay.
Following changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act on January 5, 1986, a pension earned by an individual was treated
June 9, 1987

as income during the period received and was deducted accordingly from unemployment insurance benefits as per a formula set out in the regulations. These changes were rooted in the belief that unemployment insurance should not be used as a supplement to pension income earned by those individuals who have retired and who have chosen to withdraw completely from the labour market. This has never been the intent of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and this Government is still committed to that belief.
However, the Government recognizes that there are many individuals who have retired and who, by choice or by economic necessity, have decided to remain active members of the workforce. Upon assuming a second career these people continue to pay unemployment insurance premiums, as is their legal obligation. At some point in the future an individual may be forced to submit a claim for unemployment insurance based on insured earnings accumulated during his second career. It would be inequitable to then deduct pension earnings from these unemployment insurance benefits, the result of which would all but eliminate most claims.
The intent of Bill C-50 is to correct this inequity by allowing pensioners who requalify for unemployment insurance by working subsequent to their retirement to collect benefits without being penalized for collecting a pension as well. I feel that this is a good measure. This principle is one which Members of the House should support.
In addition, Bill C-50 will compensate any individual for lost unemployment insurance benefits based on a claim begun after January 5, 1986, providing that that claim resulted from postretirement earnings. This is a good measure as well. I find it difficult to believe that any Member of the House could vote against it.
Bill C-50 creates two categories of claimants who will benefit from the proposed changes. The first category includes those referred to previously, that is, claimants who are capable of requalifying for unemployment insurance on the basis of post-retirement employment. Some 30,000 people per year are expected to fall within this category with a projected reduction of savings in the unemployment insurance account of approximately $230 million for the fiscal years 1985-86 through to 1987-88.
The second category consists of those claimants who are not capable of requalifying but who have applied for benefits before January 5, 1986. It appears that, prior to the introduction of the January 5, 1986 amendments, some people were misinformed as to what these amendments would imply. As a result, many people retired and applied for unemployment benefits based on the mistaken assumption that their pension would not affect their benefit claim.
The Minister has dealt with this problem clearly and concisely. Under Bill C-50 all pensioners who applied for UI benefits prior to January 5, 1986, will now be dealt with according to the regulations that were in place before the January 5, 1986 changes. Any benefits lost since that date will
Unemployment Insurance
be refunded. This is a good measure, and I find it difficult to believe that any Member of the House could vote against it.
The second issue with which Bill C-50 concerns itself is the matter of severance pay. Following previous changes in the treatment of payments on separation, some confusion existed which resulted in inequitable treatment. In order to prevent this occurrence, clear up the existing confusion, and treat all claimants fairly, Bill C-50 extends the qualifying and benefit period up to a maximum of 104 weeks when the separation payment has prevented the payment of unemployment insurance benefits or has delayed the start of a claim. This change merely delays the receipt of unemployment insurance and does not result in any loss of benefits.
The Minister has stated that Bill C-50 proposes changes which demonstrate the commitment of the Government to ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all workers. I wish to echo this sentiment. I applaud the Government, and the Minister in particular, for these measures.
With this in mind, I would urge that the Government carefully monitor the unemployment insurance delivery system in the future with the goal of eliciting continuing improvements. When a person retires early, he or she may be retiring permanently or about to embark upon a new career. Such a person who gets a job answers the question clearly and without doubt and requalifies for benefits without pension deductions.
Jobs are not as plentiful in all parts of Canada. I suggest that the Government should consider a future improvement to put a person forced to take early retirement, who proves that he or she is actively seeking work, in the same category as one who has obtained a job in that the claimant could obtain benefits without pension deduction. I have in mind people like members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who fall into this category.
All in all I feel the changes covered in Bill C-50 represent a tremendous step forward, and I would urge that a future goal of the Minister be to consider additional changes along the lines I have suggested.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who just spoke. Could the Hon. Member explain why his Government can ask for $186 billion to buy submarines. Why it can spend money on military equipment to kill people, to fight an otherwise unknown enemy, and why it cannot spend the millions of dollars that are right there in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which belongs to Canadian workers, to ensure that older workers are treated fairly? I know the Hon. Member as a man who is sincere and dedicated to defending the rights of his constituents. Would the Hon. Member be willing to support the demands contained in the amendments the Opposition intends to present, which are the demands of the Pan-Canadian coalition, to ensure that all workers who took early retirement before January 5, 1986,

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
either voluntarily or involuntarily-the Hon. Member is aware of people in his riding who were unable to go to the unemployment insurance office. Suppose a person stopped working on December 31. The unemployment insurance office is closed on January 1. Because the person in question received separation payments, that person would not go to the unemployment insurance office until after January 10, and unfortunately, if the Government maintains its decision, there will be at least 2,500 people in Canada who will not be reimbursed. Will the Hon. Member, considering that he defends the rights of his constituents, support the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party?


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question which was like a multiple choice question. It contained quite a few questions.
People who retired before January 5, 1986 are covered by the Bill and are henceforth entitled to benefit. Of course, everyone is always entitled to apply for benefit. The question is whether the pension income applied to the benefit would reduce it to zero or substantially reduce it.
I assume the Hon. Member means with his question that people who retired technically and filled in the forms after January 5, 1986 should not be subjected to the regulation.
The Bill deals with people who retired before January 5, 1986, and, substantially, pension will not be considered in computing their benefits in the future. The Bill also deals with people who retire after January 5, 1986 and subsequently obtain a job. In the future, after they obtain a job they too are, to put it colloquially, home free.
What about people who retire after January 5, 1986 and before they get a job? That is the area which is not covered in the Bill, and that is the area which I drew to the attention of the House in my speech.
I hope that answers the Hon. Member's question. He asked me whether I would support a Liberal amendment. I would have to see the amendment and make a decision, when I see it, as to whether it is in order. I know one was introduced earlier, but I have not had the opportunity to obtain the "blues" and read them yet. However, I will look at them, and when the time comes for the vote I guess the Hon. Member will know.
1 want to thank him very much for his interest in older workers and in all Canadians. I thank him for the hard work he did on the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration that brought in some excellent recommendations at which we should be looking in the future.


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). I know he has many veterans and service people in his riding. I must say that 1 have always known him to be a conscientious and fair-minded worker.
However, I want to ask him about the post-January 5, 1986 amendment which the Bill really covers. Armed Forces people, those employed in the RCMP, and others have had premiums for UIC deducted from their pay cheques. Under the Bill they will no longer be able to collect UI benefits after having paid in for some 25 years to 30 years, unless they can go out and find another job and work from 10 weeks to 14 weeks depending upon the variable entrance requirements in the location in which they happen to retire.
Could the Hon. Member comment upon the fairness of that one aspect? It seems that when one pays into unemployment insurance or any insurance, it should be there when one needs it. I realize that there is a very slight distinction when someone retires. However, in most cases in the Armed Forces they are not retiring voluntarily; they are being forced out. I feel that they should be eligible for UIC benefits the same as any other employee in any other occupation.
It seems to me-and I want a brief comment from the Hon. Member-that it is very unfair for the Government to ask these people to pay premiums all their lives and, just because they cannot find alternative employment after retirement, to tell them that they are no longer eligible to draw UIC benefits. I think it is wrong, and I should like to have some comments from the Hon. Member. I know he will give me fair comments on it.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his statement and for his question. They have been made with the clarity, experience, pungency, and sincerity we have come to expect of him.
I do not think there is any basic difference between the Hon. Member and myself in respect of this particular problem. The problem is that a person who retires early is not denied unemployment insurance.
Under the regulation, the pension income is considered as income and it is evaluated in the formula. It operates to reduce the amount of unemployment insurance a person receives. It is a relative type of thing.
However, in too many instances the weight of the pension can entirely wipe out the unemployment insurance, which substantially brings us to the same point the Hon. Member mentioned.
I see a difference between a person who retires early and exits from the workforce and a person who is forced to retire early, like many members of the Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I feel that the people in the latter category who are forced out early and who are actively seeking work-that is the other qualification-should be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
That is the point I made in my speech, and one which I asked the Department and the Government to take a look at regarding future change. One could make this change by
June 9, 1987

indicating that pension income will not be considered as income for UI purposes. One could do it by indicating that there is a rebuttable presumption. A person who retires is exiting from the workforce and, by evidence of the individual looking for work or with the amendment which the Minister is bringing in, obtains work. The amendments of the Minister go a long way in the direction that I would like to see us go. I laud him for that. I think it is great that the Minister has done more than anyone else in recent years in that regard. I feel there is room for further improvement, as I indicated in my speech. I hope, if the Elon. Member has a chance, he will cast an eye over it and offer me his constructive criticism, which I value very much.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I, too, am well aware of the kind of person the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) is. I sat on the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration for many long hours. We sat side by side and discussed this matter at great length. The Member says the Minister goes a long way with his changes concerning pension income and unemployment insurance. The Hon. Member says that if a second job can be obtained and the person loses that second job, that person can qualify for benefits. He thinks this is a real move.
I know that the Hon. Member represents a riding, an area, very much like mine. It is completely dependent on resource extraction. Will he stand up and tell the House whether he thinks that a person in his community who takes early retirement and actively seeks a job can find that second job in a riding like his, like mine or in ridings throughout Atlantic Canada that are very similar to ours? If he thinks that person can get a job, I would then say, yes, the Minister has gone a long way toward making some worth-while changes. If, however, the chances of getting that second job are very remote, then this Bill is not serving his constituents, my constituents, or constituents in regions across this country like ours. Really, it is nothing.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his comments and indicate that I value his question because of the very high regard in which I hold him. The Member makes a good point with respect to people who have difficulty finding the first post-retirement job.
I had a meeting in my constituency with about 500 people. Many found jobs at the army base from which they had retired. They told me of the difficulties they had encountered because this pension UI regulation was haunting them with respect to the post-retirement job they got and all the other post-retirement jobs which they may get in the future. They made strong representations to have this section removed. I am very pleased that the Minister has removed it. I was most sincere when 1 paid him tribute for doing it.
The Member mentions the other problem of people looking for work. If the Member looks at my speech, I think he will find that I covered that point, at least it was my intention to do so. 1 brought it to the attention of the House in the strongest
Unemployment Insurance
and most efficient fashion that I could. I thank the Member for giving me the opportunity to underline the fact that I did bring that matter forward.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, this is an issue in which I became involved very early in the debate, as early as November 8, 1984 when we first heard of the changes which the Government was making in the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations. It was interesting to realize what tack the Government was taking in its approach. The Government obviously zeroed in on those on long term employment, such as people in the Canadian Armed Forces. Their benefits when coming out of the military into civilian life ended up meaning really nothing to them. They could not collect the full amount of unemployment insurance. I know of some of my constituents who got out of the Armed Forces and collected as little as $2 a week. Some of them got $16 a pay-cheque. The worst is that those changes were simply unfair.
Let us take a look at what went on in the longer process. The Globe and Mail zeroed in on these changes in December, 1984. It was an ongoing issue early in 1985. The first question I asked in the House was on March 26, 1985. I mentioned the loss of unemployment insurance benefits because of severance pay. That change was to become effective on January 1, 1985. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and others in positions where their type of occupation requires them to retire early get an annuity. You do not try at the time of retirement to describe the difference between an annuity and a pension because it is very difficult for anyone to understand. That issue also came up during the debate. Members of the Armed Forces or the RCMP who get out in their forties take a monthly pay with them.
The unfairness is not just the case that people did not qualify for full unemployment insurance once they got out of the service or whatever, but because they still paid premiums like everybody else. Their pension income or annuity, whatever you want to call it, was part of their pay package and agreement while working. But the Government is taking this away simply by changing regulations.
I remember many of us asking questions of the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald). Time and time again she would repeat the dates on which various announcements were made. The announcements meant nothing. If she was going to change them, she said would announce them some time. It had nothing to do with the rationale for having done so. After she finished naming all the dates a number of times, she got around to saying that everything would be referred to the Forget Commission. I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) about it one day. He told me that it was a very complex problem and that it would be referred to the Forget Commission. That was his way out. But it was the Government that made the issue complex by changing the regulations in the first place.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
Along the way we had a press report and comments emanating from the then Deputy Prime Minister, the then Member for Yukon and also from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who disagreed with their colleague in Cabinet, the then Minister of Employment and Immigration. She still did not listen to them. Yet she would rise in the House and say that if the Hon. Member had representations to make or had any useful comments, she would be glad to receive them. I did not think there was much sense in me speaking my mind if she would not listen to her own cabinet colleagues who were speaking to her about it.
I appreciate the problem faced by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). He spoke very well on this matter this afternoon. For those of us who represent large military communities, it really created a great problem. Although members of the military community choose the ridings in which they vote, those of us who have large military bases in our ridings have many more such constituents than other Members of the House of Commons.
At that time, the Government's regulations denied unemployment insurance benefits to those military personnel who were paying premiums the same as anyone else. They were met with a double whammy. Members of the RCMP and the Canadian Forces, unless they get into serious difficulty, continue to be fully employed and, as a result, never make any demands on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. However, when they get out, they cannot collect the full amount of unemployment insurance benefits because the benefits they earned while serving those years were used against them. Actually, their own pay packages were being used against their ability to collect unemployment insurance benefits.
The Government attempted to hide its decision at that time by passing it into law through an Order in Council. It changed the regulations and effectively bypassed the House of Commons. These changes were brought in in such a way that opposition Members were prevented from debating them in the House of Commons. We woke up one morning to find that the Government had made all these changes in Cabinet and that we were suddenly faced with new rules for collecting unemployment insurance benefits.
We tried to tell the Government that if it could change the regulations to deny people benefits after they had paid for them, then it had equal authority to change those regulations back so that those people would be treated fairly and could collect unemployment insurance benefits when required between jobs. However, the Government never accepted that. It simply turned everything over to the Forget Commission.
The Government expected the Forget Commission to be the answer to all of its problems. We also know that when the Forget Commission dealt with these issues relating to unemployment insurance, it too disagreed on them. There was much dissension within the commission while the matter was being studied. In fact, two members of the Forget Commission
disagreed publicly with the changes the then Minister of Employment and Immigration had made. However, that did not faze her. She went on her merry way defending her defenceless position. Then the Government finally saw the light and decided to change those regulations much later on.
The regulation relating to members of the RCMP, the Armed Forces and others employed similarly has been changed but it is certainly not a very satisfactory solution. The Government has told those people that their pensions will continue to be used as income consideration when applying for unemployment insurance benefits. As a result, people coming out of the Armed Forces after January 5, 1986 will apply for unemployment insurance and will receive reduced rates because of the annuities for which they applied under their financial arrangements and pay packages throughout the years they worked. That is unjust.
Then there is a regulation that says that if those people get out of the Armed Forces, the RCMP or equivalent employment, and if they work the required number of weeks depending on in which region of Canada they live, they will be able to qualify without their pensions coming into play. The problem here is the fact that when many people get out of the Armed Forces, they have difficulties in civilian life. Many of them are trained soldiers. Some have held jobs that allow them to adjust easily into civilian life, but what happens to the people who are trained in fighting, warfare and handling equipment used in securing a country? These people may not have an expertise that would allow them to fit easily into civilian life. As a result, it takes them much longer to adjust from their old jobs to their new jobs. Surely during that period of time, that regulation should apply.
1 would like to see this regulation changed to allow for people who are in that position. Some of these people even have to take training after they leave their old jobs in order to get new jobs. Surely that should be taken into consideration as an added argument in favour of changing that regulation.
On Wednesday, May 14, 1986, an article appeared in The Globe and Mail bearing the headline "Ottawa determined to fight in growing battle over UI pay". It reads in part as follows:
The current 3,000 appeals will mushroom soon to about 30,000, said Ed
Halayko, spokesman for the Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners Association.
I would like to pay tribute to Ed Halayko today and to the Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners Association and other associations for the way they carried on this battle. They truly realized what this meant to people with whom they could relate very well and with whom they had associated every day of their lives.
Service personnel will continue to retire and to face this problem between retiring and acquiring their first jobs. I must ask the Minister a serious question, and it is one I have not heard him answer. Why should members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be required to pay unemployment insurance premiums if they
June 9, 1987

cannot make use of them in a better way than that which this legislation provides? That is the injustice of the whole thing.
I would like to put on record a letter from a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. It reads as follows:
I am presently a member of the Canadian Forces (CF) and have been for the past 26 years. My home town is Eston, Saskatchewan, and I am presently stationed at St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
Here is a man who served for 26 years, who obviously never received a single UIC cheque during that period of time, yet paying premiums the same as any other Canadian, knowing full well when this came in that he could not collect the full amount at the end. I go on, Madam Speaker:
Approximately 20 years ago, it was legislated by our Government that CF personnel would contribute to the UI Commission with the understanding that CF members would benefit from the investment if required. As you are well aware, Mr. McKnight, CF personnel must retire early in life, (in my case 50 years of age) and seek continued employment because the CF pension benefits are not sufficient to survive in the Canadian economic system.
Being released from the CF at a relatively early age is a traumatic enough experience, however, to pay into an insurance system that will not benefit us while seeking new employment is ludicrous, not ethical, and against my human rights.
There is the precise message that the Government must get. There must be something done to make this system fair for members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and others. We hear in this House of Commons about moral conduct. I say to the Government, Madam Speaker, that it is immoral conduct to charge people for something that they do not get. It is legal robbery in a real sense. Going on with this letter:
Generally, a member of the CF who retires with 20-25 years of service will not be eligible to draw any UIC benefits.
My second concern is that when I retire, and obtain employment, I will still be required to contribute to a system in which I will derive no benefits should I become unemployed.
At that time he was referring to his pension that would still apply. We have learned since that that has been adjusted somewhat, but it is still not fair, Madam Speaker. That person is still going to be affected during the most challenging part of his life. That is between his major occupational career and the next job, starting his second career.
We know simply that this Government got into a mess that it never thought it would get into. It is trying to crawl back out of it by leaving old inequities remain and creating new ones. As everybody in this House knows, this Government chopped $100 million out of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited budget and wanted a cut-back in employees. It gave them the golden handshake, you know, "get out, we'll pay you to leave your job." About 550 employees have left as of this time or will leave very shortly. These people are being shoved out on retirement at an early age, again having paid unemployment insurance premiums all their working careers with that Crown corporation, and are not able to collect, Madam Speaker.
So what happens? I'll tell you. As the Member of Parliament for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, which contains
Unemployment Insurance
Canadian Forces Base Petawawa and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Chalk River where people are being pushed out to on retirement, I got a real education in the unemployment insurance regulations and a real education on how unsympathetic this Government is to long-term employees.
This legislation is far from perfect. If it is not fixed up by this Government, I hope it will be fixed up by a Liberal Government after the next election, putting some human feeling, common sense and honesty back into the system, saying to people "if you are going to pay for something, we are going to produce it for you." If that is not done, then no Government in Canada should be charging unemployment insurance premiums.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the answers from the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, the Finance Minister and the present Minister, those two in particular, were anything but satisfactory. The present Minister has done sort of a half job, a patch job of coming back and trying to save the face of the Government. But the face of the Government will not be saved until they put some integrity back into their own system.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is to be commended on his remarks, and I think it is clear the Hon. Member is very familiar with the situation of Canada's military personnel, and with the adverse effects these people will suffer as a result of his Government's failure to act. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he thinks about a situation where we have two citizens, each with a weekly income of $385. Since unemployment insurance benefits represent 60 per cent of someone's income, this means that they each would be entitled to $231 in unemployment insurance benefits. Unfortunately, this is where their problems start, and where we see the double standard applied to older workers. One worker gets $300 a month from a pension plan to which he and his employer each contributed half, while the other worker gets $360 from a Registered Retirement Savings Plan, an RRSP.
Now, the one who gets payments from an employee-employer pension plan is no longer entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. The other person, however, also a worker, who is getting the same amount from an RRSP, is entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits.
I wonder what the Hon. Member has to say about this Conservative Government's decision to create two classes of older workers, whether they happen to be military personnel or people working in the private sector, and about the fact that the Government makes no distinction between a person who leaves his job and the person who loses his job. I would appreciate some comments on this aspect of the question.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I thank the Hon. Member for that question because I realize that while I am talking, I am using the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces as an example. I used others along the way. I think the Hon. Member has really highlighted another lack, another injustice on the part of this Government. There is no question that the Hon. Member has hit the nail right on the head. The Government treats one class of people one way and another class of people a different way. The very fact that it brought in some of the regulations it did on the unemployment insurance legislation simply proves that it really does not have much sympathy for the individual who loses his or her job.
When it brought in changes to the regulations, the Government said it would be very complex. I said in my speech that it created the complex situation by the changes. What they tried to do during the election campaign and after was to put things in very simplistic terms. "We are going to do this and that is it" and "We have got the majority and we are going to shove it through and if you don't like it, that's tough." That is what they are telling Canadians. By using the simplistic approach they are attacking some and not others. In the words of the Minister of Finance to me, it is a complex situation. When you start changing regulations in a general sense, you are not differentiating between someone who retires and draws upon a Retirement Savings Pension Plan and a person who loses his or her job and needs unemployment insurance.
The Government is using the golden handshake to try to get people to quit their jobs and then uses this to justify not paying unemployment insurance in the same way as it used the pension plan as an excuse. Under the new regulations, the Government will allow them to receive benefits in spite of that. Under the old regulations, they would not have been affected, but that regulation has been changed for those who will receive a pension under an RRSP.
In summary, the Conservative Government thought in very simplistic terms about the future of the country when it got on its rambunctious political trail and said how it was going to change everything in the country and set things right. After only three years, parts of the country are in the worst mess they have ever been in simply because the Government thinks everything is simple. It is beginning to learn that everything is not simple. There are many areas which must be considered differently.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, in the Hon. Member's speech he made some very excellent points. He brought to the attention of the House some very sad stories about individuals in the Armed Forces who were hurt by the unemployment insurance cuts introduced by the Conservative Government, which sad stories will be continued by this legislation forever and a day unless the Government agrees to amend it.
The stories the Member told were bad enough. However, does he realize that under this legislation if two individuals were laid off from the same firm in December, 1985, one may have been fortunate enough to have made his application for unemployment insurance before January 5, 1986, but the other, perhaps because of illness, misinformation, the Christmas or New Years holidays, or whatever, may not have made his application until January 6. The first person will get fully reimbursed while the other will not.
That is because instead of correcting the mistake it has made the Government is perpetuating it by inserting a date which divides pensioners in the same situation into two classes. As I said, the Hon. Member's stories were bad, but was he aware of the ridiculous situation which I have described which will result from this legislation?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I am very much aware of that situation. It is as a result of the Government's approach of putting forward a very simplistic solution to a very complex problem. The Hon. Member mentioned the situation of two people laid off before Christmas, 1985, one of whom submitted an application before January 5, 1986, while the other one did not. I believe there could be other reasons for that as well. The Government did not have a campaign to advertise the new regulations which it brought in. It did not send Ministers across Canada to tell Canadians that unless they applied for UIC before January 5, 1986, they would get nothing upon retirement.
If the Government is going to make major changes in policy which affect the daily lives of everyone, surely it has an obligation to put on a public relations program and tell people about it. It is not only when the Government thinks it has something worth-while to tell that it should make public announcements. If it is going to bring in bad news, it had better tell people of that too instead of making their lives worse by having them find out after the fact, when it is too late. I thank the Hon. Member for his question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde).


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Thank you for recognizing me, Madam Speaker. After two and a half months since Bill C-50 was tabled in the House for first reading, I am very pleased that we are on second reading, and possibly third reading today so that at long last the 1985 early retirees will be able to benefit and get their cheques at the earliest opportunity.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues in the House will remember that a few weeks ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) announced his intention to change the regulations on pension income so that all workers would be given fair and equitable treatment.
June 9, 1987

Under these regulations which came into force on January 5, 1986, any pension income derived from employment was considered to be earnings. In other words, the Government made it crystal clear that people who were going into retirement should not view unemployment insurance as an additional source of income.
The provisions of Bill C-50 with which I will deal today do not change anything to the Government position, and I want to make this clear from the outset.
The Government agrees that there is a basic difference between a person who retires for good and another who quit his job to begin a new career. Since people in the latter group, men and women seeking new challenges, continue to be part of the active population, we believe they should be entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits regardless of the pension income they might be drawing.
Just so there will be no misunderstanding, Madam Speaker,
I want to illustrate the consequences the new provisions of the Bill will have for certain retirees. In the case of a worker who retired in February last year and who applied for UI benefits pursuant to the January 5, 1986 regulations, his unemployment benefits would be reduced by an amount equal to his pension income. So far, no change.
But let us suppose this man found a new job in May, 1986, for example, and was laid off a few months later, under the previous regulations his UI benefits would have continued to be reduced to the extent of his pension income.
Madam Speaker, this is where we intervene through the provisions of Bill C-50 tabled on April 1. As a result, the worker whose unemployment insurance benefits would have been reduced because of his pension income will be entitled to a refund of the total amount withheld until then if his benefit period is based on ulterior employment.
The effect of this amendment is to make the changes in the regulations on pensions, which have been in effect since April 5, 1987, apply retroactively to January 5, 1986.
Madam Speaker, this legislation also affects those who applied for unemployment insurance benefits before January 5, 1986, and who were already receiving benefits by that date. When the regulations on pensions came into effect on January 5, 1986, retirees who were receiving pension income either lost their entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits or received reduced payments, so that the Government had to take action to ensure these people were treated fairly.
Madam Speaker, the Government acted as follows: The eligibility of these persons will from now on be determined according to the old rules. Let me explain. A retired worker whose unemployment insurance benefits were interrupted or reduced because of his pension income and who applied for benefits before January 5, 1986, will be reimbursed for the equivalent of the amounts previously withheld from his benefits. That is clear.
Unemployment Insurance
Furthermore, Bill C-50 contains another important change since March, 1985. A person who received severance payments upon termination of employment found that this delayed the beginning of his benefit period or reduced the number of weeks of insurable employment for his qualifying period.
Madam Speaker, according to the amendment proposed by the Government, separation payments will no longer reduce the number of weeks of insurable employment or the duration of the benefit period. We still abide by the principle that no one should be receiving severance payments and unemployment insurance benefits at the same time. I think that should be understood, Madam Speaker. However, in some cases such payments were spread over many weeks. In extreme cases, the simple fact of receiving separation payments spread over a long period could make a person ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
Under the new provisions, both the qualifying and the benefit periods of the claimants will be extended by the number of weeks corresponding to the moneys paid at the time of employment termination. Thus, most people in such a situation will not loose the protection of the Unemployment Insurance Plan at the time when they most need it. The new provisions will be deemed to have come into effect on April 5, 1987.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to outline the three major changes proposed in Bill C-50 introduced in the House of Commons by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard).
Since April 5, 1987, workers who rejoined the labour market after retirement have the same rights to unemployment insurance as any other Canadian worker, whatever their pension income. I repeat that pension income will in no way reduce the amount of the benefits to which retirees who have rejoined the workforce would be entitled. The Government proposes to have this amendment come into effect retroactively. People in this situation can ask for reimbursement of the amounts kept back during an unemployment insurance benefit period which began after January 5, 1986.
The second change concerns retirees who receive a pension income and who had claimed unemployment insurance benefits before January 5, 1986.
When the amendments proposed by the Government have been approved, the former rules will retroactively apply to the entitlement of such claimants. The sums deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits because of their pension income will be reimbursed by the Commission.
Under the third amendment proposed in Bill C-50, workers whose benefit period would be reduced or eliminated because their severance pay is spread out over many weeks will maintain full entitlement. The qualifying and benefit periods will be extended by the aggregate of weeks represented by the severance pay.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
Madam Speaker, by specifying the terms of payment and adjusting certain provisions of the Act to current economic conditions, the Conservative Government is showing flexibility, quickness of action and an open mind. Like my colleagues, I am firmly convinced that our unemployment insurance legislation now meets the expectations and needs of Canadians as well as it possibly can.
I was listening to the questions which my Liberal colleagues asked each other earlier. When someone is not satisfied with a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, he can appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Arbitration Board. This is his right. If the decision of the Arbitration Board is not in his favour, he can also appeal to the Federal Court.
In the case of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, anyone who feels his rights have been infringed, whether by Bill C-50 or by anything else, is entitled to an appeal at these two levels.


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Judging from his last remarks, Madam Speaker, I can't imagine that my hon. colleague has had much experience with the Arbitration Board. First of all, the Arbitration Board intervenes in a case only to appreciate the points of fact and the points of law. I understand that the Arbitration Board does not have the legal capacity to change the terms of reference within which it must operate, on the one hand. On the other hand, the Federal Court can intervene only in matters of law and does not have the jurisdiction to change the interpretation of the facts arrived at by the Arbitration Board.
Having said that, I should like to direct to my hon. friend a question which, under the circumstances, appears to me to be outright indecent. The question is this: Let us imagine two individuals, Madam Speaker, one having contributed to a private pension fund, and the other to a fund jointly contributed to by himself and his employer. For what reason, if we are to apply the Act strictly and faithfully, are there two different status with respect to unemployment insurance benefits? When the time comes for him to retire, the individual who contributed to a pension fund, better known as a RRSP, is in no way penalized, while the other individual who lacked the financial capability to invest in a pension fund and who is at the mercy of his employer administered pension fund, is penalized because his benefits are taken into account. How can we explain, justify and reconcile these two situations which are quite clear-cut and obviously discriminatory in the legislation before us?


André Plourde: First of all, Madam Speaker, I did not mean to challenge the Unemployment Insurance Act, but rather his interpretation of it.
In reply to his second question, I should like to tell my hon. friend that for every negative side, there is a positive side. We could talk all day long about the negative side, but I have heard no one talk about the positive side, which is that not all early retirees are not entitled to unemployment insurance
benefits . . . There are early retirees who receive a minimal pension income and who therefore are entitled to practically the full payment of their unemployment insurance benefits. Just as there is also a provision in the unemployment insurance legislation which still makes it possible for someone reporting an income to draw 25 per cent of his unemployment insurance benefits . . . Therefore, we are not talking here about all early retirees, but about some people in Canada who feel wronged, but the majority of them who are not getting even a minimal pension income are entitled to receive full unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, I have a comment following the Hon. Member's contribution. I would also like to emphasize to the House that the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) was one of the three MPs in the Conservative Party who fought the good fight for our early retirees, which resulted in the legislation now before us. Bill C-50, so that for people who indeed took early retirement before January 5, 1986, we could straighten out the situation caused by information that was hazy at that time, which hurt our early retirees. I want to commend him in this House because he was one of those, together with the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) and myself, who worked on that so that we could now have this Bill. Thanks to his work and that of others, we are now ensuring that all our early retirees, that is the 55,000 early retirees, will benefit from the $295 million that will be paid because indeed of Bill C-50.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, can the Hon. Member explain the difference between two guys in my constituency of course who retire from Firestone Company, two guys who retire the same day, one who applied before January 5 and the other who applied on January 10. Why should one get benefits but not the other?


André Plourde: Madam Speaker, I think I answered that question earlier for an Hon. Member from the Liberal Party. This is where indeed the UI Arbitration Board gets into play, on the perception and wrong interpretation of someone who, because of the Holiday season, was pre-retired at the end of December and who comes to the UI office on January 5, 6 or 7, 1986, and at that point, there is an interpretation, and I feel, Madam Speaker, the only solution for those people, and I am ready to support them, is to report to the Unemployment Insurance Arbitration Board.
Speaking of legislation this House is called upon to pass, you know, Madam Speaker, I have not once in my political life seen a Bill that made it unanimously in this House. Look for instance at the Old Age Security pensions. They are paid to people when they reach age 65. Why not give them to those 64 and over? We have heard that kind of debate before. We heard that kind of suggestions from the Opposition, when this Conservative Government gave a pension to widows and widowers aged 60 to 64, and then they asked: Why not give it
June 9, 1987

to unmarried people? Well, Madam Speaker, no legislation is perfect. There is always room for improvement.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I have just heard the Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn). We have learned that there was only three Tory members who wanted to promote the cause of the preretirees according to what the Hon. Member for Jonquiere has just said. However the Hon. Member has mentioned that pensioners who have gone into early retirement or have lost their job before January 5, 1986 and did not claim any unemployment insurance benefit should apply to the arbitration board. However, I put the following question to the Hon. Member: What is he doing here? Is he not a member responsible for drawing up clear and specific laws or is he going to ask the judge of the arbitration board to draw up some legislation while he goes away? We have here a fine opportunity to draw up some clear and specific legislation. Why does the Hon. Member insist on having his constituents, the older workers, going to appeal to obtain a decision? why does the Hon. Member want to make things harder for his constituents? Why does he not rise and say to the Minister and then to the Prime Minister: "Listen, what you are doing is unfair." You are going to put in the Bill that every person who has stopped-and later we will have an amendment. I look forward to seeing the courage of the Hon. Member for Jonquiere, when he will be asking that anyone who stopped working before January 5, 1986 and can provide it be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, like others. He knows that very often people in his riding went to the local employment centre, or even to his constituency office, to be told that under the Unemployment Insurance Act they were not entitled to benefits immediately. They had to wait because of their severance pay.
What is the Hon. Member doing here if he does not want to pass clear and precise legislation?


André Plourde: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) asked me that question, because 1 represent the riding of Kamouras-ka-Riviere-du-Loup. He said only three Members of the Conservative Party rose to support Bill C-50. That is not exactly true, Madam Speaker. Three Members decided to join forces and to meet with the Department of Employment and Immigration and our Minister to let them know that we felt that all early retirees of 1985 had been discriminated against.
Madam Speaker, I did not back out of a meeting called by a senior citizens association in my riding of Kamouraska- Riviere-du-Loup. It had been advertised on the radio, on TV and in the papers. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was supposed to be there, and also some representative from the NDP. I attended that meeting to tell people the truth, but I was the only one. They did not dare to come and confront me, Madam Speaker. Nevertheless, I defended the early retirees of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, along with all early retirees in Quebec and Canada, and that is also the purpose of the legislation under study today, Bill C-50. If it had not been for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-
Unemployment Insurance
Marie, Madam Speaker, who has been stalling on this matter for two and a half months, the early retirees of 1985 would have had their cheques a long time ago.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate today. We have been waiting a long time to carry out this debate. As Members of Parliament will be well aware, the legislation was first introduced on April 1, April Fool's Day. We all realize that the Minister is a jovial and funny fellow. He likes to tell stories and jokes. We thought he was pulling an April Fool's joke on the people of Canada. When he introduced Bill C-50, he said that some Canadians who had retired would receive the unemployment insurance benefits they had paid for. However, if one was going to apply after January 5, 1986, one would no longer be able to collect the unemployment insurance benefits for which they had paid for such a long time.
The people of Canada thought here is a funny Minister, this was a good April Fool's joke, only to find out it was not an April Fool's joke. The Minister was serious. The Government had decided that if an individual decided to retire earlier or was a member of the RCMP or the Canadian Armed Forces and, of course, was required to retire earlier than at age 60 or age 65, or if an individual was laid off because the plant or mine had closed and some severance pay was received, those individuals could not receive unemployment insurance benefits.
The people of Canada quite frankly could not believe the Government would do this. I remember delegation after delegation coming to my constituency office in Kamloops- Shuswap and delegations and rallies on Parliament Hill of people saying: "We cannot believe that the Government would introduce legislation that would be so unjust so as to treat some people one way and to treat other people in a totally different way". Some people who had paid into the unemployment insurance fund for their entire lives would not be able to collect unemployment insurance when they lost their jobs.
I think all of us can appreciate the frustration that these people must have experienced. It is as if we had paid car insurance amounting to hundreds of dollars every year in the event that when we are unfortunate enough to have an accident we make a claim and insurance will be paid to compensate for any loss. Similarly, in comparing the unemployment insurance situation to the car insurance situation, if one gets into a car accident then one goes to one's friendly insurance broker and says: "I am submitting my claim for this accident. I have been paying insurance to your company now many years". If the broker were to say: "We are no longer going to pay you. We have changed our policy, changed our mind. You seem to be someone who has an extra car, and you seem to have a good job. We won't pay you. Come back in a few months after you have exhausted all your funds trying to

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
pay for the damage to your car and we will see what we can do for you", we would laugh. We would simply throw our hands up in despair that the world had gone mad.
Such is the case with the Minister of Employment (Mr. Bouchard). He brings forward Bill C-50 which basically says that if one has retired from the Armed Forces, or from the RCMP, or if one has decided to retire early from one's firm to allow a younger employee an opportunity to come into one's line of work, then one would be penalized because one would not be able to collect unemployment insurance because one would be collecting a modest pension or severance pay. Until one has exhausted that amount of severance pay, or while one is collecting a modest military pension let us say, one's unemployment insurance would be deducted to reflect that. In other words, it would be considered as earned income.
I ask Hon. Members if they can imagine anything so peculiar. Here is an individual, let us say in the Armed Forces, who has been paying unemployment insurance for perhaps 20 years, paying unemployment insurance every week for 20 years. This person then retires, as people in our Armed Forces do after a certain length of time, with a modest pension. It is not enough money to live on.
Here are people from our Armed Forces who must go out to seek other employment, develop other careers, perhaps take advantage of some of the skills or expertise they have learned in the Armed Forces and then apply that to the civilian world. We all know how difficult that is, particularly if one lives in certain parts of Canada and finds oneself retired on a modest military pension and must go out to seek employment. That might take some time. In Kamloops we have just closed down a major military installation. It is very difficult for people in an area in which the unemployment rate is perhaps 15 per cent or 20 per cent to find a job right away. It might take a few months, if one is lucky. Well, in cases such as that, these people would not receive their full entitlement of unemployment insurance benefits because they would be receiving a modest pension. The Government has decided that if one is receiving a pension then one will have one's unemployment insurance deducted to reflect that amount of money since it is considered to be other earned income.
That is grossly unfair. People have been paying into this unemployment insurance for many, many years, with the assumption that when they did retire they would have an opportunity to have a few months, perhaps the better part of a year, to seek other employment. As I have said, in some parts of Canada that is a real challenge.
One must ask oneself: Why would the Government bring in such peculiar legislation? Why would the Government decide to penalize those people who are receiving alternative funds from pension funds, for example, or let us say from severance pay? Why would the Government do this? I suppose one could say the following. There must be a problem with the unemployment insurance fund. There must be a deficit situation.
Such is not the case. Certainly during the depths of the recession there were years when there was a deficit in the unemployment insurance fund. But I ask Hon. Members to consider these figures. In 1985-86 there was a surplus in the unemployment insurance fund of $174 million. In other words, of all the money taken in by UI, and in consideration of the money going out to help those who found themselves unemployed, there was a surplus of $174 million. That is a great deal of money.
In 1986-87 the figure increased to $720 million in surplus funds. For the present year, 1987-88, the projected figure is a surplus of $1.7 billion. That is an incredible amount of money. There is no need to become niggardly and to penalize tens of thousands of people who are already a part of a system today, let alone those who will be part of the system in the future, who have a modest income from a pension into which they paid for so many years and who now find themselves to be ineligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits.
I wish to make one thing clear at the outset. Bill C-50 will bring help to a number of people who were caught as a result of the Government changing the rules of the game half-way through it. About one-third of the 50,000 people affected will receive justice as a result of Bill C-50. But the question remains: What about all the others? What about the other two-thirds of the 50,000 people affected by this change of legislation, let alone all those from now on and into the future who will be affected by it?
As a Party we say that this is a very unjust Bill. It is unfair. It is discriminatory. It is undemocratic. We cannot support a Bill that can be described in those terms. We recognize that it will bring justice to a handful of people across the country, a few thousand people who were caught when the Government changed the rules half-way through the game.
The only thing we can ask is why on earth did the Government do this? Why on earth did the Government decide to discriminate so much against those in the Armed Forces, in particular, and those in the RCMP, and those on private or public pensions to which they have contributed for so many years?
Not everyone is caught in this situation, as we well know. For example, if an employee of a company or a professional decided to invest money, not in a company pension plan or a government pension plan but instead into stocks or bonds, or into property in Hawaii, Jamaica or wherever, and then collected revenues on that for retirement purposes, then one is not excluded. In others words, if that is how one obtains one's pension funds, then that is okay. One can collect that money and collect unemployment insurance as well. However, if a man or woman who served in the RCMP for so many years, served Canada in that respect, and contributed to the government pension plan, then that person cannot obtain full entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits once he or she retires and is seeking alternate forms of employment.
June 9, 1987

The whole thing is illogical. To me it reflects the reality of a Government that is in a state of total confusion. This is a Government that really has no idea what kind of a society it is attempting to support. This legislation supports those who obtained their retirement income from investment portfolios. It discriminates against those who contributed to company pension plans or government pension plans, as those people in the Armed Forces and the RCMP would obviously be doing.
In a sense this legislation places Canadians into two classes. There are those who contribute to their retirement years in one way versus those who provide for their retirement years in another way.
I wish to indicate another concern which I have. The Government received countless petitions with respect to this matter. I remember my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who day after day with our colleagues in the New Democratic Party presented petitions to the House bearing thousands and thousands of names.
In fact, I remember a stack of petitions presented one day which included 19,000 names of Canadians who were registering opposition to this discriminatory, illogical initiative by the Government. Earlier I mentioned the large rallies on Parliament Hill of retirees who were opposing the imposition of this legislation. They felt that they had contributed to unemployment insurance and pensions all their lives, only to have the Government change the rules at the eleventh hour and keep from them what they believed to be rightfully theirs.
I should like to refer to the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council which tabled a report indicating the following recommendation:
That the Government not proceed with the announced changes in the unemployment insurance regulations scheduled to take place January 1, 1986 -
In other words, the actual advisory group to the Minister indicated that the Government should not proceed.
The House will recall the famous Forget Commission. A member of that commission, Mr. Roy Bennett, a former executive with Ford Motor Company, spoke out in February, 1986. He was reported in The Winnipeg Free Press as follows:
In hindsight, I think it would have been better had the Government not made those changes-
Those were the comments of a member of the Forget Commission. He indicated that the Government initiative in this case was not particularly good.
I should also like to refer to letters from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the then Minister of National Defence, the former Hon. Member for Yukon, Mr. Nielsen. In his letter, Mr. Nielsen said:
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.
Unemployment Insurance
The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to say in his letter:
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.
He made the point that members of the Canadian Armed Forces ought to be excluded from this discriminatory, unjust, and illogical legislation.
The most interesting letter we received was from the Progressive Conservative Women's Association in Oromocto-Burton-Geary which passed a resolution calling upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to withdraw the inequitable provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Even key players in the Progressive Conservative Party do not agree with this initiative of the Conservative Government.
One could identify individual Members of Parliament in all political Parties who have spoken against the legislation and have tried to point out to the Government that it was not an appropriate initiative.
As we all know now, it was an initiative announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8, 1984 with no consultation whatsoever. We have been trying for nearly three years to determine from whom the Minister of Finance got the idea. To whom did he talk? Members of his own caucus, people in his own Party, people from all regions of Canada, and people from a variety of walks of life have unanimously opposed the legislation. One must ask with whom the Minister of Finance discussed the matter before he made the announcement on November 8, 1984 when he suggested that the Government should change the unemployment insurance program so that pensions and severance pay would be considered earned income.
I remind the Minister that for more than four decades the country has not considered pension and severance pay income as earned income, and the system has worked well. People have planned their lives with this in mind. People have planned for their retirement years with this in mind. For the Government to change the regulations-and I emphasize that point-is really a disservice to the people of Canada.
I must say that the Minister of Finance did not have the courage to introduce legislation to make these changes. He knew that if he were to introduce legislation at first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading, the people of Canada, through their elected representatives in the House of Commons, would have stopped that discriminatory, punitive legislation.
The Government chose the sneaky, underhanded, back-door, end run approach. It decided not to introduce legislation nor to propose statutory changes. It decided to simply rewrite the regulations in the Unemployment Insurance Act. This is backdoor legislation; this is under the table, back room, backhanded, sneaky legislation.
It indicates to me a Minister of Finance who does not have the courage of his convictions, or knows that his caucus would

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
not stand behind him, to introduce it as a Bill. Therefore, the regulations were changed behind closed doors. Unfortunately I suppose members of the Minister's Party now feel an obligation to find some way to support the legislation, as we have seen in today's debate. In a sense I feel sorry for a number of members of the government Party who must think of something positive to say about this initiative.
I want to say very clearly that as a caucus the New Democrats will not support the legislation today. We will oppose it on principle. We believe that we cannot support a Bill which treats people in an unfair and unjust way today and forever into the future.
We appreciate the Government's initiative will help a handful of people who were caught in the process prior to January 5, 1986. However, those who applied after that date are caught up in this very discriminatory Act.
I do not know how the Liberals will vote. I suppose, as some of their spokespersons have indicated, they will support the legislation. I do not understand why anyone would support it because of its very unjust nature.
I want to close by suggesting that another problem with the legislation is the fact that many people, who paid into the unemployment insurance fund and had their contributions matched by their employers, have waited for months and months for the Government to make up its mind, to make a decision on whether or not they would be eligible. As Bill C-50 indicates, a handful of Canadians will be eligible. What about the interest on that money? Tens of millions of dollars have been sitting in an account waiting for the Government's decision for months and months on end. However, there has been no commitment on the part of the Government to provide interest on those funds; these people have been unable to use that money. Again I remind the Minister of Finance particularly that when any Canadian owes the Government of Canada some money, interest payments are at the top of the list. The Government ought to do the same in terms of treating these people fairly.
In conclusion, I simply want to say that it is unfortunate legislation. Although we oppose it, we recognize that it will be helpful to a handful of Canadians.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). In the House earlier today we heard the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) say that he was supporting the Bill, a Bill which will entrench into law a very unfair provision.
I want to ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, who is experienced in the House, how any Member of Parliament who has properly read the Bill, apart from government Members, can actually support such an iniquitous Bill?
As the Hon. Member pointed out, the Bill will affect those who were disentitled as of November, 1984 and into the future. How can any self-respecting Member vote for a Bill
which will entrench an unjust law? How can one do it? How can that be squared with one's constituents, with the people out there, and with one's conscience?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt for his question.
As I indicated in my speech, the Minister of Finance used a back-door approach to change the regulations and to impose these new changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am sure members on the government side were as surprised as any of us when they awoke on April Fool's Day and found out that the Government was proceeding with this initiative. As I said, I appreciate the fact that some members feel an obligation to speak in favour of the Bill, but they do it in a rather creative way.
To respond to my friend from Nickel Belt, I can only assume that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart), as a Member reflecting his views and having to go back to his constituents to explain his vote, must have made a mistake. I cannot believe that the Liberal Party as a caucus would support this legislation.
At the moment, Madam Speaker, I will give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt and assume that the Member perhaps got his positions mixed up and had not consulted adequately or appropriately with the critic who spoke very strongly against the legislation which was introduced and will be voted on today. I assume the Liberal caucus will be voting against this legislation and that the Member from Montreal-Saint-Marie made a mistake when he said that his Party would be in support of it.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, today is a great day for our early retirees. After 17 months, their situation is about to be corrected at last. All who opted for early retirement before January 5, 1986, will finally be able to draw the unemployment insurance benefits to which they were entitled.
Madam Speaker, at this point, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Roberval and Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) for agreeing with the position taken by his Conservative colleagues who defended the cause of early retirees across Canada, and especially in Quebec, where there were quite a few in this group. The Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde), the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) and myself have, on several occasions, pointed out to the Minister the shortcomings of regulations that were adopted by this Government and which led unsuspecting people, to retire. They even received encouragement from their unions and some of our officials who said that if they took early retirement before January 5, 1986, they would be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
June 9, 1987

Madam Speaker, as a result, these people opted for early retirement, in the firm belief that if they did so before January 5, 1986, they would be entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits. In fact, what happened was that the pension income of these people was considered as earnings, and as of January 5, 1986, their benefits were reduced.
There had been some confusion in this respect, and at the time, these people were, I would say, unfairly penalized as a result of that confusion. And that is the position we took in explaining the matter to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and his predecessor, who had asked the Forget Commission to make recommendations in this respect.
Today, the provisions of Bill C-50 will correct this situation, and finally, early retirees who applied for unemployment insurance benefits before January 5, 1986, will have their entitlement fully recognized, and will be able to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
Madam Speaker, why did our Government have to consider pension income as income for the purposes of unemployment insurance? As you know, people used to retire at 65. So on that basis people were entitled to only three weeks of UI benefits. Gradually the mentality of Canadians has evolved and nowadays people retire much earlier. People began retiring at 64, then 63, and now we see some who retire at 60, 57, and so on. This is how Canadians came to believe they were entitled to one year's unemployment benefits on retirement. And of course we hear people say: I paid unemployment insurance premiums for 20, 25, 30, 35 years; it seems to me I should be eligible for UI benefits.
If we look at it this way, Madam Speaker, it does make sense that from a merit standpoint someone who has paid premiums should indeed be eligible.
But merit alone cannot be a consideration because the unemployment insurance principle is that people are entitled to benefits in cases of lost employment or if they are unfortunate enough to be unable to earn an income. This is where the Unemployment Insurance Act comes into operation so that people will have a source of income for a while, that is 60 per cent of their previous income over a certain number of weeks up to a maximum of 50.
The same principle prevails, Madam Speaker, except that the Government believes that unemployment insurance should not be considered to be a retirement income. So what we are doing is that in the case of someone who retires early, the unemployment benefits are reduced by an amount equal to what he gets at retirement, that is his pension income.
Madam Speaker, no one is being left out in the cold; no one is being left without a cent. Those who have no pension income and who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits will still be able to claim unemployment insurance. However, those who have a pension income of more than $297 will have their unemployment insurance benefits reduced proportionately, which means that they might not receive any benefits. Once
Unemployment Insurance
more, our retirees are being protected as far as unemployment insurance is concerned.
Madam Speaker, the Forget Report recommended that the Government postpone this decision for two years.
I would like to remind my colleagues opposite that if our Government has done as recommended and simply postponed the debate for two years, some people would still have found themselves in the same situation when the legislation came into effect.
After the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8, 1984, everyone knew that the new regulations would come into force on January 5, 1986.
As I said at the very beginning of my speech, Madam Speaker, today is a great day for early retirees as those who retired before January 5, 1986, will receive the amounts to which they were entitled.
In addition, Bill C-50 now under consideration corrects another anomaly in the case of people who retire from our Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and later rejoin the labour market. Previously, their pension income had been considered as income when they claimed unemployment insurance. Bill C-50 now tells these people: If you rejoin the labour market and are eligible for unemployment insurance, your pension income will no longer be considered as income.
I believe that our Government is clarifying an important point which will solve the problems faced by these people who could not count on the protection of the Unemployment Insurance Plan after rejoining the labour force.
These are therefore the two major points of the Bill, and I would also like to remind opposition Members that in the case of people who may for instance have retired early before January 5, 1986, and may not have had the time to apply for unemployment insurance benefits, of course our Government has to draw the line somewhere. Whenever there is a legislation, the line has to be drawn somewhere. But those people are still free to present their cases to the unemployment insurance commissioners who will consider them on a case by case basis to determine whether those people are indeed eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would also like to underscore the patience of our early retirees, for I have met with many of them in my region, in the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area, many ARSAC people and early retired pensioners, including someone from the Jonquiere constituency, Mr. Rosaire Bouchard who, on a number of occasions, contacted me to enquire as to when Bill C-50 would be introduced in the House. On each of those occasions, I insisted that we needed the co-operation of the Official Opposition to be able to introduce that legislation and make it possible for our early retirees, the 55,000 early retirees, to take advantage of the $295 million which will be made available to them.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
I therefore want to acknowledge their patience and I regret that it took another two months before we could pass this legislation because of the unwillingness of the Opposition to co-operate.


Carlo Rossi: That is not true!


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: 1 am also urging opposition Members opposite, especially Members of the New Democratic Party, Members of that opposition Party, to support our Government on this Bill. I believe it is clear enough that in the case of an early retiree who was being treated unfairly before January 5, 1986, the situation is now being clarified, so that those people will at last be able to get their unemployment insurance benefits, and I believe this is a good legislation for those people and the Opposition should be supporting the Government. It is fairly obvious that we are doing the right thing for our early retirees. We are filling an earlier gap, and this is a great day for those people, for all our early retirement pensioners.
So, Madam Speaker, this is the view I wanted to express on Bill C-50, and as a Member for Jonquiere, I am greatly pleased to support this Government and also to thank my colleagues, not only the three Hon. Members who more especially worked on behalf of our early retirees, but also all Hon. Members from the Conservative Party who appreciated the principle in this Bill and helped us win over our colleagues and who today make it possible for all our early retirees to get the benefits they were entitled to.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, if I understood the Hon. Member correctly, he tried to justify the provisions in this Bill which would deal with the situation of a member of the Armed Forces or the RCMP paying unemployment insurance premiums for years and years yet when forced to take early retirement, and I say forced, not being eligible for any benefits. The Hon. Member said that that is true, those people would pay for years and years and would not be eligible for any benefits. But he said that they could get second jobs and if they qualify under those second jobs and are laid off, then they will receive UI benefits. He says that that is the justification.
If the Hon. Member is to give these people benefits only after they are laid off from their second jobs, why does he make them pay premiums while employed in their first jobs? Why should they pay premiums on the first jobs when they will not receive any benefits from the first jobs? If they will be forced to take second jobs to receive benefits, then they should only pay premiums on the second jobs.
Members of the Conservative Party must think the Canadian public is foolish if they would accept that justification. There is no justification whatsoever for that rule. The Bill should provide that people who are forcibly laid off through early retirement should not have to pay premiums because they cannot claim benefits after those jobs. If they have to
work again, of course they will have to pay premiums and that in itself would give them the right to benefits.
The whole thing is filled with illogic from beginning to end. The principles that are applied to the second job are not applied to the first job. A pension is not acceptable after the first job but it is all right after the second job.
In the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration-


Mr. Gormley:: Is this insurance or pension? You don't know what you're talking about.


William Warren Allmand: I know what I'm talking about. Come in here and talk about it and we will ask you questions. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.


Carlo Rossi: Gormley, go to your seat and speak up.


William Warren Allmand: He has not got the courage to come into the House to speak.
I have respect for the Hon. Member who just spoke. I worked with him in committee. The other Hon. Member never came near the committee.
How can the Hon. Member justify making members of the Armed Forces who must retire early pay premiums when they cannot collect a cent in unemployment insurance benefits when they are laid off?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the question put by the Hon. Member. First, a retiree's pension income will be treated as income for Unemployment Insurance purposes. If the individual is not entitled to Unemployment Insurance, this means he or she has at least $297 a week from the start. This is what it all means, because if your pension income is lower than that, you are still entitled to your Unemployement Insurance benefits, depending on your earned income.
Second, Madam Speaker, this Government. . . and we clearly established that Unemployment Insurance benefits are not to be treated as pension income. We took that premise and we stand firm on that. Through Bill C-50, we just corrected the gaps because we wanted to ensure that someone, a member of the Forces for instance who took early retirement, who had pension income, if that individual returned to the labour market and later on lost his or her job, he or she could at least be entitled to Unemployment Insurance benefits. But pension income is taken into account for UI purposes, and again as such Unemployment Insurance benefits are not to be viewed as retirement income.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I found the speech of the Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) to be most disturbing. I could not see the logic of it. The Hon. Member said that this was a great day for those who retired early
June 9, 1987

before January 5, 1986. Might I remind the Hon. Member that it was his Government that announced the decision in November of 1984, not the Opposition.
It was this Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who did not consult the workers, who did not consult the representatives, who did not consult the UI Commission, who did not consult the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council and who consulted no one. He did not even consult his own fellow Tories and treated them like they were nobodies. They weren't even 50 yards off the Hill, they were nobodies right there in their own seats.


Mr. Orlikow:: They still are.


John R. Rodriguez: And they still are because there they are like sheep supporting a Bill that is so flawed in principle and in application.
Having done that, the reaction came from across the country. What did the Government do? The former Minister of Employment and Immigration turned the matter over to Claude Forget who was to study it. He studied it and made recommendations to the Government. The Government tipsied, turvied, t isted and turned and now, three years later, it brings a Bill before the House.
How can the Hon. Member face his constituents in Jonquiere having taken away by regulation the unemployment insurance benefits of those who took early retirement in order to save the jobs of younger workers? Now he is saying what a great thing the Government is doing when it is giving back those who retired prior to January 5, 1986 the benefits while at the same time continuing the injustice by saying to those workers in regions like his and mine that they have to get a second, non-existent job to receive unemployment insurance benefits if laid off. How inconsistent can he be?
That is the same trash we heard in the Standing Committee when we discussed this issue and that is why the Hon. Member's colleagues voted against him. In fact, 90 recommendations were carried by a majority and the Hon. Member was the only one who voted against giving justice to early retirees. Ail the rest of his colleagues including the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom)-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Where are they today?


John R. Rodriguez: I don't know where they are. 1 haven't lifted something lately and looked but they might be there. They are not in the House. The fact-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. As there is only one minute left in the question and comment period, I think the Hon. Member would agree that the Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) should speak.
I point out to all Hon. Members that it would be better to refrain from mentioning the presence or absence of other Hon. Members in the House.
Unemployment Insurance


Carlo Rossi: They do so all the time, Madam Speaker!


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member-


Carlo Rossi: They have the right to do so; we do not.


Michel Champagne: It is just like you; stop doing so!


Carlo Rossi: Two years from now, we will see . ..


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please! One minute. The Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) has the floor.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that if he were among those who have been waiting for 17 months to receive the unemployment insurance benefits to which they are entitled, he would feel too that this is a great day when legislation is finally passed by the Government.
Also, concerning the motion which was moved before our Standing Committee, Madam Speaker, I am the only Member who refused to vote in favour of one of its 90 recommendations, the one dealing with pensions, because other Members wanted our Government to take a step backwards and make sure that pension income would no longer considered as income for unemployment insurance purposes. Madam Speaker, if I refused it is because I did not want our early retirees to develop wrong expectations, knowing full well that our Government had no intention to go backwards; there was no reason for me to pretend and create false expectations. We should show more honesty towards those we are representing in the House of Commons.


Jean-Claude Malépart: The truth!


Carlo Rossi: You are the ones who cut the unemployment insurance benefits.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, 1 cannot believe the logic of the Government. It kicks workers in the teeth by bringing in legislation which is completely unfair. The Liberals fight it. Workers fight it. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners Association fight it. We force the Government to back off. Now members of the Government come forward and say we should pass this legislation because at least it exempts those who were affected prior to January 5, 1986. What about those who are going to retire in 1987?
1 was up in my office and got a telephone call from someone who has worked 29 years at Firestone in Hamilton. He is very

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
fearful that in the next two days there is going to be an announcement which could lead to either closure or sale of the plant. The future of the plant is up in the air. This worker wants to know, if that happens, whether he will be entitled to collect unemployment insurance while he is looking for another job. The Government is asking us to support a Bill which would say to this worker that 29 years mean nothing. "You paid into the fund for 29 years but you cannot have a penny. If you get another job you will have to continue paying unemployment insurance even though you cannot collect."
I am not surprised that the Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) fled-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Only a minute ago the House was reminded not to refer to the presence or absence of other Hon. Members. I would appreciate the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) observing that recommendation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the few Conservative Members here are hanging their heads in shame.


Mr. Jelinek:: How many Grits are there? Four.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They do not want to get up and speak on this legislation because it is awfully embarrassing and they do not want to be put in the position of going back to their riding and saying that they supported legislation which could mean 1,000 workers in Hamilton will have their unemployment insurance benefits put in jeopardy.
I would like to speak to another amendment which has not been dealt with in great detail. It relates to severance pay. When the Government first introduced this legislation, not only did it hit between the eyes workers who were being forced into early retirement, such as Canadian Armed Forces personnel. It also said to those workers who received severance pay that they cannot collect unemployment insurance until they exhaust all of their severance benefits. Most people will know that when you have been working on a job, perhaps with a small pension plan or perhaps no security at all, and you are in the process of trying to find new employment, retrain or get reoriented, you need that severance pay to make the necessary changes in your life. Yet the Government cut that off as a result of the 1984 budget statement.
However, the Liberal Government in Ontario believes workers had the right to keep their severance pay. That Liberal Government recognized that severance pay is an emergency fund which you need over and above the money needed simply to survive. That Government introduced legislation which meant that workers in Ontario, under certain specific circumstances, could continue to collect severance pay and at the end of that time they could apply for full unemployment insurance benefits. Clause 9 of this Bill before us cuts the heart out of that Ontario legislation. It cuts the heart out of legislation which says to workers when you are laid off after 20, 25 or 30 years, through no fault of your own and you are
not in a position financially to retire, we are going to give you this severance package to help you reorient yourself, relocate and get a bit of a leg up on what is probably the most crucial period in your life.
I am not surprised the Government is bringing forward legislation that snatches that assistance from the mouths of workers' families. I am not surprised because since 1984 it has consistently promised itself to be very long on promises and short on action for older workers. I will refer to the promise made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when he pulled the LAB program out from under the feet of Canadian workers. The former Liberal Government introduced the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program. If you were in a so-called sunset sector, where jobs were decreasing rather than increasing, and you had worked for a long time and your age plus years of service totalled 80, essentially you could go on an early retirement program and receive continuing benefits. The Conservative Government cancelled that program last year. It promised to replace that program with another. It even had a nice name for the program, POWA. The Government said it was going to reach out to older workers. Yet here we are in 1987, we have not heard a peep from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) or the Minister of Finance, and older workers are not only not receiving the unemployment insurance benefits that should be their due, neither are they getting LAB benefits and there is no replacement program.
The Government claims it does not have enough money. The Government claims it is going bankrupt. They may be morally, but not financially. Imagine my shock and surprise when 1 walked into the House today and I see a so-called newspaper called-

Journal Action federate du Canada with a picture, not one picture, Madam Speaker, but 50 pictures of the Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) spread over eight pages. Fifty pictures of the Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve over eight pages. And, Madam Speaker ... He says there was no expense. I hope he is right because page 8 features a picture of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his remarks to the management and staff of the Journal Action federate du Canada and it is entitled Prime Minister of Canada. It is not entitled " Leader of the Conservative Party" but "Prime Minister of Canada". So he claims to be speaking for the Canadian people by lending his support to a newspaper, which is a clear betrayal of the principle that journalists should at least give the impression of being unbiased.
A word from the Prime Minister, "To management",-I assume this means the Hon. Member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve-"To the management and personnel of Action federate du Canada, my best wishes for a successful their new magazine. I am sure this monthly publication will provide a fresh look at what is happening in the region."
June 9, 1987

What annoys me is not just the 50 photographs of the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but the fact that the Hon. Member is posing with a bikini-clad female-


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and he thinks that is journalism! He would have us associate the Prime Minister and a bikini-clad female with the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I find that extremely annoying.
Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve would be better off voting for legislation that will give more money to our workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) knows perfectly well she is not supposed to show documents of this kind in the House. I am glad she finally reverted to the subject before the House today, and I would be grateful if she would continue in that vein.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I apologize. I was commenting on the Conservative Party's wasteful spending, because I wonder whether Canada's workers will continue to support a party that has no compunction about cutting off the very lifeline of our workers, because if you cut off unemployment insurance, you cut off everthing they've got. But this Party can always find money to invest in asinine publications that would rather print pictures of bikini-clad females than articles on Canadian politics.
Madam Speaker, this is why I asked the Conservative Members whether that was the policy. Because I think that workers are fed up, they have had it up to here listening to the Government telling us there is not enough money for workers, yet they did find money for the banks, money to change military uniforms, money for all kinds of things, to pay $1 billion to the banks, just like that, it was able to find $1 billion in less than 48 hours. But when it comes to helping workers the government simply cannot find a cent.


Jean-Claude Malépart: And the submarines-


Sheila Maureen Copps: They say: We are broke after 1986, after January 5 there is nothing left. We no longer have any money for older workers-


Jean-Claude Malépart: And repairs to Ministers' offices!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and they are asking us to support them and help them betray the workers. I do not want any part of this betrayal!
Madam Speaker, to a certain extent I should like ... I am pleased that the New Democratic Party should already have raised this issue in the House because I, for one, would like to tell the House how I see the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party in my own riding of Hamilton East.
Unemployment Insurance
As it happens, Madam Speaker, I am talking about older Steel Company workers who are anxious to be retrained because they have been laid off. So instead of trying to find solutions through legislative measures or employment strategy the New Democratic Party would rather play petty politics and directly influence the steel workers' union, call a press conference to denounce the Government without even inviting a single Member of the Liberal Party.
I would like to address the question of the NDP. We have heard a lot about the NDP in relation to this Bill. I dare say that if it had not been for the Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners Association, the Alliance coalition Quebec, and the Liberal caucus, the NDP would have laid down and died, this Bill would have gone through, and they would not have got their money.
I find the hypocrisy of the NDP unbelievable. In my riding steel workers are being laid off. Instead of trying to mobilize Members of Parliament who have a voice in Parliament, the NDP had a sneaky little press conference with their so-called candidate on Hamilton Mountain who does not even have a voice in Parliament. They are prepared to jeopardize the jobs and retraining of steel workers for their own petty, political ends.
I am not the only person who has said this. In fact, the person who ran the program for two years for the steel workers is so disgusted with the NDP's abuse of its parliamentary privilege and the privileges of Members of the Legislature in excluding all other political Parties from discussions on the Canadian Jobs Strategy that he is pulling out of the program. He is sick of the NDP and its hypocrisy.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is getting carried away with her rhetoric. She congratulated the candidate for Hamilton Mountain. The NDP has worked closely with the Canadian Labour Congress in planning a program to fight this Bill. I wish she would tell the story straight rather than applying her own politics to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is sure that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) understands very well what it is to get carried away in debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Me?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: However, that is not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I raised this issue because I think it is well and good for all of us in Parliament to take credit, although I am sure the Government does not want to take credit for this Bill as it is positively embarrassing. However, we in the Opposition believe that we had a small

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
part to play in getting the Government to back off on this specific issue.
People like Ed Halayko pulled veterans from coast to coast together. For the first time in the history of this country he mobilized a demonstration of Armed Forces veterans here on Parliament Hill. He will say that the Armed Forces did the job by pulling the people together and causing the Government to reverse its position. We saw the same kind of mobilization from the Alliance coalition Quebec when people came to the Hill to express their point of view. I believe that is the joy of democracy.
I raise the issue of the NDP because they do not mind hitting out. I heard the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) blasting the Liberal Party in a question about a half hour ago. They can dish it out but they find it really hard to take. I believe that in this situation in Hamilton where they have tried to use partisan political means to pursue victory for their candidate they have bitten off a little more than they can chew. When you deny a Member of Parliament the right to fight for her constituents on something like the Canadian Jobs Strategy, you are showing your Party to be one of hypocrisy. I believe that that is what the voters of Hamilton Mountain will decide.


John R. Rodriguez: You're crying again.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member says that I am a cry baby. I am not a cry baby. I tell the truth and the people in my riding know that. They will not be very happy with the NDP which tried to circumvent the process to improve the Canadian Jobs Strategy steelworkers program.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the Hon. Member for Hamilton East repeating what I said, but she should repeat exactly what I said. 1 did not call her a cry baby. I said she was crying again. She cried when they reported that she was plotting against her Leader and she is crying again right here in the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's a sexist comment and I resent it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The NDP thinks women cry. I don't cry and even the Member for Nickel Belt doesn't make me cry.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Give me a break. Sexist.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Do I look like I'm crying?


John R. Rodriguez: I read it right here in The Toronto Star, in your paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, order! I am sure Members want to debate the Bill which is now before the
House. I ask all Hon. Members to keep their comments relative to the Bill now before us. There are enough things for Hon. Members to say without getting into conversations which can only make this House unruly. I know that is not what Hon. Members want the public to see. The Hon. Member for-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I can assure the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that I know the name of the riding of the Hon. Member sitting next to her.

Order! I hope that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) does have a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, you may decide upon it when I am finished speaking, not before.
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). In my opinion, he has insulted the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) since the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has no way of knowing, cannot pass judgement on what has been said, on what has been repeated by my colleague from Hamilton East, on whether or not this is what the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has said, since he-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I believe that these are matters which can best be checked by all concerned when the blues are out. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has two minutes to conclude.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has come up with this item in the newspaper since it demonstrates that he is just as sexist as the newspaper in saying that I indulge in crying. Frankly, Madam Speaker, you have seen me in this House on several occasions. Do I give the impression of being a woman who cries constantly? I do not think so and I can appreciate that the NDP feels hurt to have been told the truth about the riding of Hamilton, about what happened during the election; that was painful. It is easy for them to insult the Government and the liberal party. They think they always do better. But the NDP is not ready to accept the truth when its own members are guilty of breaching political ethics.

This Bill is treason to working people. It is an attempt to cut the ability of those people who have rightfully paid unemployment insurance all their lives to collect that unemployment insurance. It is an attempt to cut off the possibility for people of Ontario to collect severance benefits.
I believe this Bill should be stopped. We have fought long and hard for the inclusion of 34,000 workers who would have been covered when the legislation was amended. However, at the same time I do not expect the Government can ask us to
June 9, 1987

support this legislation which will lead to chaos for older workers, who are already the hardest hit.
Perhaps when the Government follows up on its promise to bring in a program for older workers and brings in a real program for early retirement we can then begin to talk turkey. At the moment, however, it is quite clear that it wants us to support bad legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order! I must inform the Hon. Member that her time is up.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Hon. Member. The original proposal to destroy the ability of people who have paid into the unemployment insurance system through weekly payments for years was opposed from the day the Government brought it forward.
The Government did not introduce this legislation because something was wrong with the unemployment insurance system but because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was determined to reduce the deficit. This Bill was opposed by all opposition Members of Parliament.
The Member is correct that the strongest opposition, and I am sure the most important opposition in terms of convincing back-bench Conservative Members that this Bill was terribly wrong, came from the retired Armed Forces personnel who are so adversely affected, and by other pensioners.
However, I could not believe what I was hearing when she accused the New Democratic Party of being able to manipulate the unions in Hamilton so that they could not carry on the battle as they should. I would understand it if it was said by Conservative Members of Parliament from a rural area or a wealthy part of Vancouver or Toronto, who have no understanding of the labour movement and how trade unions operate. I know they are ignorant about workers and the unions to which workers belong, but the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) comes from a city which probably has the highest percentage of organized union workers in this country, and one of the strongest locals of any union in the steelworkers' local in Hamilton.
When the Hon. Member for Hamilton East suggests that the NDP in Hamilton was able to manipulate the union for its crass political purposes and was able to have the union not do the job it should to protect their unemployed members, she is not denigrating the NDP, but attacking and denigrating the union.
The officers and full-time representatives of the steelworkers' union should be turfed out if they were guilty of that kind of charge which the Hon. Member from Hamilton has made against them. If there is anyone who is using this place for crass partisan political purposes, it is the Member for Hamilton East. She ought to know a hell of a lot better than to spout the kind of nonsense she did.
Unemployment Insurance


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, as usual, the New Democratic Party make many comments with little information. If the Member knew anything about the situation I am referring to in Hamilton he would know that the charge was not levelled by the Member for Hamilton East but levelled by the director of the program who had worked in developing it for unemployed steelworkers. He is a member of the steelworkers' union himself and was so disgusted with the NDP that he pulled out of the program.
The charge was not levelled by the Member for Hamilton East, it was levelled by the man responsible for the program who, himself, wanted to invite all Members of Parliament, including Liberals and Conservatives-there are no NDP Members of Parliament in the Hamilton area-to say that the federal Government is cutting back on programs and we should work together to get a fair share for Hamilton. That is what he wanted to do because he believed in the program and in the workers.
Instead, he was overruled by members in the New Democratic Party who decided to hell with the workers. They decided it was more important to push the NDP candidate in Hamilton than to give the workers of Hamilton a voice in Parliament by involving every Member of Parliament. When you make that kind of charge, you make it toward the steelworkers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Try as it might, the Chair has a very difficult time relating the last comments to the Bill being studied.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for her courage and frankness. However, I cannot do the same for the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and a few others. I would like to know what my colleague for Hamilton East thinks of the comments made by the Members for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) and Kamouraska (Mr. Plourde). In other words, is it not a fact that the Conservative Government cut off the unemployment insurance benefits of older workers? Is it not a fact that the Conservative Government deindexed or tried to deindex Old Age Security pensions?
My colleague is well aware that the Conservative Government wanted to put a tax on medication for those who suffer from cardiovascular diseases, diabetes or respiratory illness. This is my own impression, and the members of the Quebec Coalition for the defence of pensioners and early retirees in Quebec are here now. These people had a good reason for organizing at least seven demonstrations and forming action committees to put pressure on Conservative Members. I would like to hear the comments of my colleague. These people have fought for 17 months. As for the Hon. Member, she said earlier that she would oppose the Bill in its present form.
I myself said at the beginning of my speech that I would agree to vote for this Bill on the condition that the Government would accept our amendments. If the Government accepts the

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
amendments moved by the Liberals, that is by my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) or by myself to avoid any discrimination in this Bill, will the Hon. Member also vote for it?


Sheila Maureen Copps: In such a case, Madam Speaker, we shall certainly vote for this Bill because it will then be acceptable. However, without these amendments which deal with unemployment insurance and severance benefits-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Severance pay.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Without these amendments, we could not support the Bill as it is discriminatory, and I know that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) fights discrimination in the case of senior citizens, whether we are speaking about the cost of drugs or pensions. This Bill includes discriminatory provisions which will be removed if our amendments are adopted, but without these amendments, it is unacceptable.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I was listening to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), and I would like to tell her that if Hon. Members on her side of the House vote against the legislation, our early retirees will realize that all the noise made by some of you was only scam and petty politics, because we now have a legislation that early retirees have been expecting for 17 months so they could get the Unemployment Insurance benefits they were entitled to, because there was fuzziness. Now we are correcting that gap, and I hope you will rise and support the Government on behalf of our early retirees, who are counting on that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) must think early retirees are goddam stupid if he thinks he is .. .


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member will want to apologize and polish her language.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Madam Speaker, I do not want to profer ugly words. So I say, if the Hon. Member thinks early retirees are so ignorant they are not aware that this Government introduced those 17 months of waiting, we in the Liberal Party were ready, even in November, to get the Bill through. We were ready in April last to pass the legislation dealing with early retirees prior to 1986. We were even ready two months ago to have the Bill pass. The Government used us as hostage by claiming-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Senior citizens are hostages.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -they will be paying those monies. In fact, we did the fight for retirees, and we will go on fighting for those who will be retiring after January 5, 1986.
So 1 do not think early retirees can blame us if the Government introduced a Bill that is discriminatory.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, if there is anyone in the House who has not been deafened within the last half hour, I would like to address a few remarks to them. The reason I rise is because I have an affinity for retired servicemen. As many Hon. Members will know, I served for 26 years in the Armed Forces and have some understanding of its pension system, more often referred to by servicemen as their superannuation.
When the new Minister was appointed a year and a half ago, I felt rather sorry for him. The Forget Commission had been formed and the only analogy I can think of for the job he had to do in trying to sort out the unemployment insurance system was rather similar to saying to him: "Go out to the kitchen. There is a stew boiling on the stove. Separate all the condiments in it without taking it off the stove". It was just an impossible task. The Minister understood that and is going about it one stage at a time.
I think 1 can speak for quite a few of the servicemen who say that this Bill is a considerable step forward to where they want to be. It will give them an opportunity which very few people have. After they qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, which is after 20 weeks, work at their second job, they can then get unemployment insurance at the full rate despite the fact their pension will be coming in at the same time.
Referring to pensions as earnings for unemployment insurance purposes is what this Bill is all about, whether or not we should consider pensions as earnings which, at present, we do. What has bothered me about this Bill is the anomaly in the logic which accepts that before the member retires, he must pay into unemployment insurance which is supposed to insure his employment. When he reaches retirement age, he must leave. He then retires and starts drawing his pension and suddenly he is not insured for unemployment insurance despite the fact he may spend the rest of his life unemployed and despite the fact, as I think everyone has pointed out, that during his entire service he would not have missed a single payment, or a single week's work, either. So it really is an exercise in futility. However, if an individual gets a job and holds it for 20 weeks, suddenly pension is no longer income. It seems to me that if it is logical to consider pension to be income in one period of one's life, then pension is income. Had the Government gone for that, I could understand the logic. Had the Government gone the other way and said it is not income at both times, I could understand that. However, to say it is income during the period that one is unemployed and as soon as one starts working again, it is not, is a bit hard for me to grasp.
I placed a question on the Order Paper in March. I do not know how many Members noticed. It was answered on May 4. My question was, and I quote:
In each of the years I9S5 and 1986, did Canadian Armed Forces personnel contribute to unemployment insurance and, if so,(a) what was the total
June 9, 1987

amount collected from them (b) did the Government match these contributions (c) what amount was paid out of the U.I.C. fund to unemployed exservice personnel?
The answer to the first question by the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) was, yes, Canadian Armed Forces personnel did pay into UIC. He was a bit short of figures in 1986, having the "pay out" for 1986 but not the "pay in". In 1985 the servicemen themselves paid in $45,700,712. The Government contributed $56,988,788. I have never been able to understand in all the many years I have looked at these figures for civil servants, and this Bill applies to all civil servants, only to a slightly lesser degree because civil servants have an older retirement age than the Armed Forces.
I could never understand why the Government did not contribute exactly the same amount every year, but there is some technical reason. However, the fact is that the Government did not contribute anything in 1985. My question was: "What amount was paid out of the UIC fund to unemployed ex-service personnel?" The answer was $39,992,164 which is less than what the servicemen themselves put in. I think all of us in the House of Commons of Canada are smart enough about the way things are done to know that there is no fund sitting in a safety deposit box into which the Government put $56 million in 1985 because that would have matched the servicemen's input. There are careful records kept with respect to that fund, but it is not in existence. No bank holds it in bonds, nor is there anything that has been put aside to provide a fund which generates funds. Consequently, there are several theoretical billions of dollars in this theoretical fund.
The fact is that in 1985, in reality, the Government did not put anything into the fund. The serviceman and woman knows that he or she has put something into the fund because they can see it missing from their pay cheque every month. They put in $45.7 million.
If we look at 1986 we find out that this aberration, let us say, of the Order in Council, has been, to a large degree, fixed by this Bill. The payment out dropped from $39.9 million in 1985 to $28.1 million in 1986. The Government, instead of making only some $6 million from the servicemen themselves, made some $17 million. That is to what I object. I have asked the Minister to take that up and to reassess the entire unemployment situation. It badly needs it.
There are a great many people who are paying into the fund and a totally different set of people who are taking money out of it. It does not seem to me that that is the way that most insurance policies work. I think that the Minister has done the best that he could with this Bill. It meets the requirement that they be allowed to withdraw unemployment insurance if they are going into the civilian workforce. It will enable them to draw it at a better rate than other people who have similar incomes to what retired servicemen have.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?
Unemployment Insurance


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Allmand. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost. We will now resume debate on the main motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, 1 want to say on behalf of the members of my caucus that we are opposed to this Bill because it is flawed in principle, it discriminates, it is illogical, unfair, and undemocratic.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: And we don't like it either.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I would like you and all Members of this House to know that this Party is prepared to deal with the Bill by ten o'clock this evening, deferring any third reading vote until tomorrow.


Mr. Gauthier:: That is the agreement anyway.


John R. Rodriguez: That is the agreement, and I trust government Members are not going to betray the trust of all those Canadians out there who are expecting this Bill to be passed. We have some very good amendments for Committee of the Whole. 1 think they deserve to be debated. If the Government thinks it is going to double-cross the Opposition by going back on its agreement, it is not double-crossing us, it is doublecrossing the 50,000 early retirees who expect their concerns to be dealt with fairly in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House declines to give second reading to a Bill which contradicts the principle that pension income is earned income and that pension is considered earnings for unemployment insurance purposes and creates discrimination in an essential service.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was an understanding among all three Parties that we would deal with this Bill in total today. That included completing second reading stage, arranging for Committee of the Whole, which physical arrangements the Clerks have already made, and completing the third reading stage, all within the extended day to be concluded by ten o'clock. We agreed to defer the vote on third reading so that Members would not necessarily have to stay until ten o'clock.
We now understand that the Government has decided not to live up to that agreement, that we will not deal with report stage today. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) has informed me that the Government plans to continue debate at second reading until ten o'clock. That is not what we understood would happen today. We understood that we would complete all stages, not only second reading stage never reaching Committee of the Whole or third reading.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, the agreement which was struck with all three Parties is very clear and is on the record. The Government has many speakers who wish to speak either at second reading or to the amendment which has been moved by the NDP. We are prepared to allow every person who wants to speak to do so. In fact, one of our Members was rising to speak. Our Party will debate this legislation at second reading using the full time available for debate and questions and comments. If a recorded division is required on second reading stage at ten o'clock we are perfectly prepared to be here to vote.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister and Government House Leader. When the three House Leaders reach an understanding to facilitate the passage of legislation through all three stages, we believe that it should be lived up to. The understanding was that all three stages would be dealt with, which includes Committee of the Whole.
After agreeing in good faith to accommodate the Government's request to complete this Bill today, we learn that the Government has decided not to live up to that agreement but rather to sabotage the House's ability to reach report stage, Committee of the Whole stage, and third reading. The Government has the right to do that. It has the unilateral right
June 9, 1987

to determine the business for tonight. However, the Government should not ask us to come to agreements to facilitate government business ever again.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is in some difficulty in that this is a question of negotiations among the Parties. The Chair will recognize Members who wish to speak on the Bill. The Chair is in the hands of the House in this matter.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, when we agreed to this special order it was quite clear that we were agreeing to a proposal which included Committee of the Whole at which stage we could move amendments. If the Government intends to speak on second reading until ten o'clock when all questions are to be put so that we cannot have committee hearings in Committee of the Whole, that is contrary to the spirit of the agreement. I ask that the Deputy House Leader or the House Leader clarify that. We want to ensure that we have a reasonable amount of time in Committee of the Whole, which is what we thought we were agreeing to.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, we have Members who wish to speak on this. I am sure it is no surprise to the House that we have several regional caucus meetings this evening. 1 suggest that we continue debate while I sit down with my colleagues in the two opposition Parties to see if we can determine a time at which it might be convenient for the House to go into Committee of the Whole. We can deal with any matters at that time.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader to recall exactly the comments made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), which are recorded in the official Hansard, the Debates. The Minister and everyone absolutely wanted that the Bill get through in one day, with possibility of amendments. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will remember ... Because that is a commitment from the Minister, there are people from the Coalition who are here and I hope this will go through all stages and we will be allowed to bring in amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the question is settled for the moment. There will be negotiations among the Parties.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to see representatives of our early retirees in our Gallery. They will be able to see for themselves the kind of procedural nit-picking opposition Members have been inflicting on us since last April, before we can finally make these payments.
The Government is hardly responsible for the fact that the debate and subsequent payments have not taken place sooner. We would love to adjourn this House immediately and order those cheques to be paid forthwith. However, for the sake of procedural arguments or because of a need to make a kind of circus out of the worthy cause of early retirees, the Opposition,
Unemployment Insurance
and 1 am referring to both parties, insisted on using all kinds of rules and regulations and procedural nit-picking to draw out the debate and try and enhance their political credibility.
Earlier, I met the leaders of the Association des preretraites in the lobby. They are starting to see the light and were wondering how useful what was being done today, and what has been done for a number of months by the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, would be in getting payments to our early retirees who now will not be paid until next month, the eventual result of today's debate that was agreed to after endless pressure from Quebec Conservative Members.
I may remind the Hon. Member who moved an amendment just to draw out debate, an amendment by the New Democratic Party, that he doesn't seem to understand what the debate is all about or what the legislation is all about, and perhaps I could summarize the fundamentals so that he will have a better idea of what we are talking about.
The amendments to the provisions on pension income reflect this Government's conviction that retirees should not consider unemployment insurance as a supplementary source of income.
I think that is understood.
However, the Government recognizes the fact that a distinction must be made between those who retire permanently and those who retire in order to start a new career. I think that is also understood.
The changes announced by the Government make that distinction and ensure that people who retire and start a new career are treated justly and fairly, considering they continue to be part of the labour force.
When the Government learned on December 5, last year, that some people maintained they had not been thoroughly informed about the significance of the provisions on pension income which were to be implemented on January 5, 1986, we immediately proposed, at the request of the Conservative Members from Quebec, that the Government arrange to review the cases of those who stated that their decision to retire had been based on inaccurate information received from federal Government sources. A departmental investigation was carried out when we learned that some employees had misinformed the public. The Hon. Minister immediately asked for an investigation and set up administrative procedures. Because of the slowness of the administrative process, we found that application of these procedures could become very complex.
Once more, the Government took matters in hand to avoid complications, such as a possible difference in application of the rules from region to region, and made some changes to the regulations on pensions which had come into effect on January 5, 1986. Bill C-50 defines a simple rule, and 1 am surprised that the Hon. Members opposite cannot understand it. This simple and clear rule ensures fair treatment for all claimants during the transition period.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
The rule is quite simple. All those who claimed unemployment insurance benefits before January 5, 1986, when the previous rules still applied, will have their elegibility determined according to the rules then in effect. In addition, all those who made their claim on or after January 5, 1986, will have their claims processed according to the new provisions. It seems to me quite clear that this meets exactly the expectations of the preretirees. This Bill was introduced in April, and if the Opposition had seized the opportunity to support the Government, these people would already have received their cheques. But no, they saw fit to play politics, play cat and mouse by resorting to procedural wranglings in committee, never failing to raise all kinds of objections or move amendments, so much so that after many months we are still fighting to get a green light to issue these cheques for which early retirees have been waiting for so long.
Hon. Members will recall that on December 5 our Government announced it was going to amend the legislation with respect to pension income. That was on December 5, 1986. While respecting the principle that retired people should not consider unemployment insurance as an additional source of income, the announcement made it clear that people who take another job after retiring and who stay on that job long enough to be entitled to UI benefits should not have such benefits reduced by an amount equal to their pension income. Again this was a request on the part of early retirees.
Through this legislation the Government will amend the pension income regulations as of April 5, 1987. In addition the Bill will make these regulations retroactive to January 5, 1986.
Again, that is exactly what our early retirees have been asking for and which they could get through some good will and gesture on the part of the Official Opposition.
These amendments will make it possible for workers, who have started a new career during which they have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund and who then find themselves without a job, to become fully entitled to unemployment insurance benefits calculated on their employment income following their retirement, whatever their previous pension income may have been. This is exactly one of the claims which is now being met by the Government.
This legislation deals also with a matter of equity, which has to do with the treatment of the amounts paid upon separation. Hon. Members will remember that on March 31, 1985, amendments were made to the treatment of amounts paid upon separation for unemployment insurance purposes.
Since the coming into force of these amendments, a number of management-union agreements have tried to take advantage of what can only be described as loopholes in the current wording of the unemployment insurance regulations. The purpose of these "arangements" was to betray the intent of the legislation.
Through this legislation, the Government is amending the regulations by eliminating this loophole and preventing some people for getting double compensation, I mean receiving both
a separation payment and unemployment insurance benefits. These amendments came into effect on April 5, 1987. Exactly as in the case of someone who is applying for unemployment insurance benefits, it must be ascertained that he has no other sources of income, since the unemployment insurance scheme is directly related to the work he was carrying out and which represented his one and only source of income.
The proposed Bill will also make it possible to extend both the qualifying and benefit periods when the distribution of the amounts paid upon separation presented the payment of benefits or delayed the beginning of the unemployment insurance benefit period. For instance, if separation payments extend by seven weeks the beginning of a benefit period, the qualifying period will be extended by seven weeks.
In conclusion, since several Canadian men and women will be affected by the various sections in this legislation, we ask our hon. colleagues to give it their undivided attention and move amendments is an effort to delay its passing and to make political gains at the expense of poor retirees who want nothing more than receiving their cheques. Those people need their cheques and, for the past three months, the opposition has certainly thwarted the efforts made by the Government to issue them.
My philosophy teacher always told me when I did not understand or grasp the meaning of an excerpt dealing with philosophy-


William Warren Allmand: It was not even called for second reading, liar.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Chair would like to hear what the Hon. Member who has the floor is saying. Let me try to remind all Members that most of the time screams or comments being called across the floor are recorded in Hansard and perhaps Hon. Members would like to think twice before making some comments that they would regretfully see in Hansard the next day.

The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I am concluding. 1 was quoting my philosphy teacher who said teasingly when we did not understand a text which was rather clear: What is well understood can be clearly stated and the words to say it so easily come. He used to add: "Of course, pigs cannot appreciate pearls." He was just joking. I suggest then that maybe we should try and understand and vote quickly-


Mr. Nystrom:: It was professor John Crosbie!


Louis Plamondon: In conclusion, madam Speaker, I stress again the necessity to pass quickly that bill in order to satisfy
June 9, 1987

those people who are eagerly waiting for the amount which is really due to them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) to explain to the House how it is that he can infer that we, the Opposition, are delaying this Bill, given the fact that we have agreed that it will pass through all stages, that is second reading, committee of the whole and third reading, in a single day. I therefore ask the Hon. Member to clarify his point, to explain how he can insinuate that we are delaying this Bill when we have already agreed to the proposal by the Government to adopt this Bill in a single day. It is simply unbelievable that he should make such an inference!
Madam Speaker, I also have a second question for the Hon. Member. It is the following. How can the Hon. Member-for whom I have the greatest respect-explain to the House that he is in favour of a Bill which denies members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of the RCMP the possibility of collecting unemployment insurance even when they have contributed for many years? How can he explain that he is in favour of such a Bill?


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I am going first to say that I have also a lot of respect for the Hon. Member. Now, when he asks me to explain to him why his Party can be accused of delaying things, when it passes a Bill in one day, I would like to remind him that for the last three months, we have asked that this Bill be put on the Order Paper, so that we could pass it in one day. Regrettably, we could not make ourselves heard by both opposition Parties. We have been ready for a long time to pay and this ... An example: if you were ready to resolve the matter, why, today, when the text is clear and precise, are you still proposing amendments? Your Party just proposed another one. This only delays the debate, when everybody knows that at the end, it will be this text, as tabled by the Government, which satisfies entirely those who want the necessary money that has been taken from them, that will be adopted.
One never talked about any other person than our early retirees, who signed petitions, who met with Government and Opposition MPs and who want exactly this bill which will allow them to receive their cheques. Any procedure or amendment only results in delaying the end of the debate and obviously, the issuing of the cheques. Obviously, if you stop speaking and the Opposition does the same, the debate will stop and the cheques will be sent out. If not that, what do you call delaying things?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 
William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am the official critic for unemployment insurance for my Party
Unemployment Insurance
and I want to tell this House and the Hon. Member that no one approached me-


Some Hon. Members:: That is not a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: -no one approached me to limit the debate to one day until about eight days ago. This Bill was tabled in the House on April 1 and the Government did not do one thing about it until about eight days ago. Then it offered us not a day, but a Wednesday afternoon, a short day. I said I would be willing to accept the very next day, if they gave us a full day with extended hours, and it took them almost eight days to respond. So cut that out. Tell the truth.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


William Warren Allmand: You do not know the meaning of truth over there.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) knows very well that this is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) first to signal he had a point of order. I will then recognize the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Madly). The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Actually, Madam Speaker, it was not a point of order, but a question to the Hon. Member. That is why I was standing. My question is-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I had understood the Hon. Member was rising on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Gatineau on a point of order.


James Douglas Manly: That is precisely the point of order I wanted to raise, Madam Speaker. We were back to the questions to the Hon. Member, and I wanted to ask him one question, but the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis)-I find it difficult to pronounce-had indicated he wanted to rise on a point of order. So, I would simply like to give him a hand. But if he does not have any point of order, other MPs and myself wanted to ask questions, Madam Speaker, and I have been rising for a long time.


Mr. Corbett:: Madam Speaker, I have been patiently waiting for a ruling or an interjection by yourself on an interjection made by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) when my hon. colleague the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) was making a speech, which prompted you, Madam Speaker, to rise and call the House to order, to which the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East quite distinctly, and I am sure it will appear in the blues, referred to our hon. colleague as a liar.
I have been patiently waiting for the Hon. Member to be called to order and to withdraw those remarks or be dealt with accordingly because, certainly the Hon. Member for Notre-

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East knows very well that that is unparliamentary and unacceptable. I personally take it as an affront as a Member of this Elouse of Commons that such language would be tolerated by the Chair. I expect you, Madam Speaker, to deal with it accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There was at one
time-and I hope we will not have to listen to this very often this evening-many people talking rather loudly together. I warned everyone not to say anything they might regret the next day. If the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East has some apologies to make, I am sure he will make them. As far as 1 am concerned, and I will check the blues tomorrow, I cannot be certain at this time.
If the Hon. member feels he should apologize, I am sure he will do so.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I know the rules do not allow me to call the Hon. Member a liar, and I did call him a liar, so I will withdraw that remark. Unfortunately, I cannot think of any other words which will express the same opinion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is not an
unequivocal withdrawal, but I think that at this late hour, tonight, we shall accept it.
The question and comment period is now over. On the debate, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on this April Fool's Day joke which the Government has played on the workers of Canada who are anticipating retirement and wondering how they are going to handle their affairs. I appreciate the opportunity to say something immediately after the unseemly display which has occurred in the House, precipitated by an Hon. Member suggesting that the Opposition was holding up action on this Bill. Here we have a mess created by the Government in the fall of 1984. It has taken the Government months, years, one could say to recognize it as the mess it is even when the Ministers of the Cabinet pointed out the mistake which had been made.
Members on the front bench of the Government caucus are prepared today to indicate how unsatisfactory this Bill is even now. We then have a Member of the Government, a new member admittedly, since the 1984 Parliament, suggesting that somehow or other the Opposition has been holding this up. I can appreciate why a Member would be tempted to say that is a lie because it is not true. What we have to recognize here is a mess that the Government created and which it is refusing even now, belatedly in this April Fool's Day joke Bill that it served up, to do justice to Canadian workers.
What did we have? We had a new Government, swollen with numbers, arrogant in office, convinced it could do anything, dedicated to one end alone, convinced that only by means of reducing government expenditures could it return the country to prosperity and, regardless of any sense of honour, any kind of promises given in the election campaign, determined to do anything to reduce the outflow of government expenditures in various areas.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in preparation of his statement for presentation within days after the House convened in November of 1984, came up with a bright idea to change fundamental rules in the unemployment insurance system. It is a system which, at that point, was almost half a century old. It had been won by years and years of labour in the 1930s, in years of depression, by workers who were out of work and who wanted it, insisting that unemployment was not their fault, that governments had to recognize some responsibility. There were people in province after province who insisted that an unemployment insurance system was necessary on a national basis in order to provide for the unemployed. Finally, by constitutional amendment no less, the Canadian people resolved to do just that.
In 1940 unemployment insurance was added to the list of federal responsibilities. Fundamental rules were established for it. It was a system of insurance which was maintained by employees and employers. Government came into it when necessary to keep up the amount of funds needed to maintain the scheme. But it was a system of insurance.
In recognition of the plight that workers faced when they retired, there was a system of benefits laid out. In the 1970s that system of benefits was improved and enhanced at a time when unemployment rates ran very high and such a scheme was necessary.
What did the Minister of Finance decide to do in November of 1984 but to change the fundamental rules, to say that there are some lucky people out there who, when they cease to be employed, have money. In some cases they may become eligible for benefits. They may be eligible for severance payments. They may even have holiday pay. The Minister said: "Let us count all of that as income. It is marvellous. We can postpone the day when the unemployment insurance fund will need to advance anything toward them, when they will have any kind of eligibility for benefits. In the process we are going to reduce the outflow from the unemployment insurance fund and the deficit will be reduced somewhat".
No regard was given to good faith. No regard was given to the situation of workers who had earned these benefits over months and years of service. They were simply struck away. The philosophy of the Government was to break faith and save money.
What we have had is a system in which as many as 55,000 Canadians have been retiring just on that one aspect alone. Thanks to these changes the Government has been able to save
June 9, 1987

$250 million on an annual basis. Sure, it has been a nice saving. Yet no regard was given to the fact that the Government has resources that people put out of work do not have.
No regard was given to the fact that persons who had planned for years found themselves faced with retirement, involuntarily in many cases. After all, it was the military personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces, and others in the RCMP, particularly in the lower ranks, who were forced into retirement. This was not a voluntary decision they made. They were forced into retirement.
The Minister of Finance, having regard and responsibility for the finances of the country, and having the resources of his Department and of the Bank of Canada, as well as the Canadian people behind him, turned to these people who were forced by the regulations of the Armed Forces and RCMP into retirement and said: "You are not going to have any entitlement for unemployment insurance because your pension is too high". Or he said: "You may have a little bit of entitlement. We are going to take your pension benefits first and calculate them. If that is less than you are entitled to under the new regulations, we will top it up a little bit".
To say that to people who still might be in their forties or early fifties, people with responsibility for families, with children in college and university making large demands on their families, people who served the country well for decades was one of those fundamental acts of bad faith that has been characterized by Government time after time. It went on to characterize it over the next months. It aroused the anger of the Canadian people. It has provided the basic reason that has driven this Government down toward 25 per cent and less in the public opinion polls. That kind of lack of faith was not to be tolerated by the Canadian people.
What do the Canadian people do now but wait quietly for the day when they will have the chance to turf this Government out and throw it as far as they possibly can. That was the situation created by the Minister of Finance in the fall of 1984. It was obvious that it was a bad piece of work. It became obvious very quickly as the Minister of Employment attempted to work with the regulations and had to change deadlines. These were deadlines that were in effect for the end of the year, and then pushed back for later in 1985. Then further changes pushed them back until 1986. It was obvious that a fundamental mistake had been made.
In fact, ultimately, when the royal commission which was looking at the entire unemployment system declared in its report that a mistake had been made, there could be no doubt that the Government had taken the wrong course of action in the fall of 1984 in terms of this particular action for retirees. It was the minority report on unemployment insurance written by Frances Soboda and Jack Munro which drove the point home in paragraphs that considered not just retirement but severance payments and vacation benefits as well.
I wish to read some of this into the record since it makes the point so well.
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions, severance pay and vacation pay have one thing in common. They were all earned prior to separation from employment.
Pension income is a payment from a fund that was generated for an employee while he or she was employed. Vacation pay is an entitlement that is earned while employed and banked either in a "time off with pay ' bank or in some cases in a vacation pay trust fund. Severance is a compensation to long-service employees for their lost employment rights. It is earned while employed and paid out on termination to finance the special adjustment problems that older workers face. It is an asset, not income. These earned benefits are caught in the regulation's net because they happen to be paid out on termination of employment... It is illogical to treat them as if they were.
It is also extremely unfair. Many working people have taken early retirement from jobs in heavy industry, in particular, on the assumption that they could be able to supplement their pension income with lower-paying jobs after retirement, and that they would be eligible for UI when they were unemployed.
Thousands of others in the armed forces and police are required to retire many years before normal retirement dates. These "retirees" are expected to find other employment after "retirement." Counting their pensions as income makes them effectively ineligible for UI.
It is the only form of income not related to current earnings which is allocated against UI benefits. Investment income or income from RRSP's which is indirectly related to employment, prior to termination, is not allocated against UI benefits.
It is inequitable to count pension income against benefits, for example, but not RRSP income. It is inequitable to count severance benefits against UI benefits but not the proceeds of RRSP withdrawals or other forms of pre-termination savings.
There, in one of the distinctions which the regulations drew, we see the kind of unfairness that the Government was prepared to create. Those who were not able to deposit to a regular pension fund, those who had to use RRSPs, or those who built up investments through other means and who might well not be compelled into retirement, those people would have escaped the net anyway. Others, those thousands of Canadians who were grateful for pension plans, worked through their unions and by other means to build them up, built up a benefit, built up an entitlement for their retirement.
In cases where they were in the forces or with the police, very careful planning was required. I know about some of this from members of my own family. They made calculations on how they might use pension benefits, together with other sources of income, to find work and to continue in a productive role in society after they had retired from the forces.
All this was done away with by a sentence or two in the statement of the Minister of Finance in November, 1984. For years the Government has allowed the situation to prevail. It has allowed this abomination on Canadian workers to continue. Finally, we had the Bill on April 1, and the Government waited through April, through May, and more than a week into June to bring it forward for second reading.
We have an understanding that it will be debated at second reading and considered in Committee of the Whole, that we will have an opportunity to put forward amendments in an attempt to improve it. God knows that the Bill needs improvement. It should not be passed in its present form. I am sure the critics in our caucus and those in the Official Opposition want

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
to try to improve the Bill so that there will be a re-establishment of the regulations we should actually have.
What are we faced with? We are faced with Conservative Members who have something half good enough for them to want to make speeches about it. They want to spend all evening talking about it instead of giving us an opportunity to try to improve it in Committee of the Whole.
They are prepared to accept something which will save
22.000	workers on an annual basis but will leave another
33.000	workers unprotected. If they are prepared to make big speeches about it and fill the evening praising the Government for half-hearted measures a third of the way along the road, I suppose that is the situation in which they find themselves in government these days.
We all know that organizations of retirees across the country are not content with this Bill. As soon as the Bill was tabled they made clear that it was inadequate and insufficient to allow persons who were fortunate enough to find a second job to establish unemployment insurance eligibility by those means.
It is a classic piece of unfairness. Those who have connections, those with skills, and those who live in parts of the country where jobs can be more readily found are the people who are favoured. They might conceivably be able to obtain a contract for enough months to establish eligibility. However, those who live in Atlantic Canada, those at lower ranks in the forces who are unable to obtain contracts, and those without jobs wherever they are, remain out of luck. This is from a Government which claims to have the most needy always in mind when dealing with social policy.
It is an instance of Conservative unfairness and readiness to stick it to the unfortunate while pretending that the Bill which has been put forward is some great improvement to the unemployment insurance system. They have hardly begun to walk the road back to justice for the workers of Canada, for those who are forced into early retirement.
I see no reason for us not to get into Committee of the Whole as quickly as we can to put before the Minister amendments which would make the Bill what it should be, if we are to have a genuine return to the regulations that prevailed on November 7, 1984 and a return to the kind of justice the people of Canada want. Let us get to that point this evening and forget about speeches in support of something that does not deserve praise.


Mrs. Mailly:: Madam Speaker, what would the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) have had us do in the fall of 1984 when we faced a very serious crisis? We had 1.5 million people unemployed and an unemployment fund which was empty. It was in deficit by at least $1 billion. This is what triggered the effort to try to resolve the problem.
The Hon. Member has seen what the Forget Commission recommended as a way of dealing with the problem. They were Draconian measures which would have either delayed the
payment of unemployment insurance or would have narrowed the number of weeks when people could have drawn unemployment insurance. They were unacceptable alternatives.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) looked at how we could put the unemployment fund on a basis where it could meet the needs of the unemployed and how we could create jobs to reduce the unemployment figures.
That is exactly what we have done. Granted, the unemployment fund can no longer be used as a retirement plan, but it was never meant to be a retirement plan. We did the best we could with a very unfortunate situation. The previous administration knew about the problem in 1982-83 and did absolutely nothing. We came along and had to do something about it. We felt that the most just thing to do was not to take away unemployment from people who were truly unemployed, not to make them wait longer, not to give them less money, and not to give them benefits for a shorter period of time. We looked at how the plan was being used in ways for which it was not meant when it was instituted.
The Hon. Member gave an historical rendition of what the plan meant, but he omitted a very recent piece of history. The fund was empty. What would the Hon. Member have us do? Would he have us shorten the period, give less money, or ask for more money from workers to put into the fund?
Now that we have this situation, would he have us not give a chance to members of the Armed Forces who usually take an early retirement, not because they have to but because they have decided that they can retire at 45 years of age? Would he have us not give them a chance to reapply for unemployment insurance? Would he not give a chance to public servants who want a second job after they have retired? Would he not give them a chance to have unemployment insurance? What is it that he would like us to do?


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, those last sentences were just silly rhetoric. I have said that I want all this done and so much more, so let us not have all this talk about what I would want and so forth.
In 1984, the unemployment insurance fund was in deficit. What else would one expect when almost 1.5 million Canadians were out of work? What else could one expect? One expects the Minister of Finance to use the resources of the people of Canada through his Department and the Bank of Canada to finance the unemployment insurance fund until we are into a better employment situation and a lower deficit situation. That is what we want.
However, the point is that we are not faced with the situation in 1984. This year the unemployment insurance fund is expected to be $1.6 billion in the black. At the same time the Government refuses to extend justice to all retirees as it should. With money in the bank, it is refusing to re-establish the benefits for all workers to whom it should be extending it.
June 9, 1987

Surely that is the fundamental contradiction in my hon. colleague's question. What is the point of railing on about being dissatisfied with what we have here when there are resources to extend full unemployment insurance benefits to people who are driven into retirement?
They do not want to use the UI fund as a retirement fund but as a transition to other employment. Why not allow them the full benefit of that rather than force them to finance their own job hunt until they are lucky enough, if they are, to find a job and then to begin building up benefits? That is the contradiction at the heart of the Bill, and there is no point to laying rhetoric on it. The Bill simply failed.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, no wonder the Conservative Party is so low in the polls. The Hon. Member who just put a question indicates that she is not familiar with either the Forget report or with the Unemployment Insurance Act. Would the Hon. Member please read Recommendation 26 to the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). She said that Forget's recommendation was Draconian. Recommendation 26 reads:
The current treatment of pension income should be rescinded with an effective
date of January 5, 1986. The new policy should be announced and an
implementation date of January 1, 1989-
Which means that Forget wanted the entire thing withdrawn as of January 5, 1986. I guess the Member for Gatineau has never read the report. Will the Hon. Member please instruct her on that. I would also ask the Hon. Member to please instruct her on the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Government wanted to correct the situation where people use the Unemployment Insurance Act as a retirement fund. Please let the Member for Gatineau know that in the Unemployment Insurance Act there is provision that you must always be ready and available for work. If you are not ready and available for work, you are not eligible for unemployment insurance. If you have a pension and if you are still ready and available for work, you should be eligible for unemployment insurance. The control mechanism against people using unemployment insurance for retirement is that they must indicate whether they are really going to retire or be ready and available for work. If they are not ready and available for work, no one is suggesting that they should get unemployment insurance. Will you please instruct the Member about the Act?


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this further opportunity from the Liberal critic to say something about the Act and the point of the legislation. To do all of this in the presence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is a bit of a privilege. It is good to have him here this evening in this part of the debate, and 1 trust he is listening carefully. The opportunity to obtain unemployment insurance benefits while one is still under 65 is because it serves as bridging from the employment one has had to the employment one expects to find. That is as true for someone who has been forced into retirement from the Armed
Unemployment Insurance
Forces or the police as it is for anyone else who has been forced into retirement.
The resources of the country are there. These days the resources of the unemployment insurance fund, again as a result of the increase in premiums which the Government has carried through, is in good financial shape to handle this. At $1.6 billion in the black, there would not be any difficulty in taking that final step and providing the 33,000 retirees-which the present provisions will not protect-with the opportunity to obtain benefits as they pursue work.
As my friend has pointed out, and as I might underscore from the reports, including the unemployment insurance minority report Ms. Soboda and Mr. Munro, from which I read there was a recommendation about a difficulty that might arise in this area of allowing persons on pension income to receive unemployment insurance benefits without regard to the pension benefits they were receiving. After all, this was the kind of planning people had done previously in preparing themselves for retirement. The response put forward was to ensure that people were generally in the job market looking for work. That recommendation is the one which the Minister has refused to take. Clearly the Minister of Finance and the bunch over in the Ministry of Finance who want to keep taking money out of the pockets of the Canadian people every chance they get by taxation, higher premiums-


Claudy Mailly: What nonsense.


Abram Ernest Epp: -by declining to pay off benefits, these same people have seen to it that the Minister who probably wants to do right by retirees has been prevented from doing so. There very simply is the problem with his Bill which is why we are so critical of it and why we resent the government Member trying to whip up something good for this Bill which it does not deserve.


Alain Tardif: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to add my comments to those of previous speakers and give you my impressions of this Bill.
However, I must say, first of all, that after listening very carefully to what was said by the Hon. Members for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) and Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), that I have seldom heard so much political rhetoric in just two speeches.
Madam Speaker, since the Hon. Member for Richelieu finished his speech saying that he had met a philosopher who said that if you didn't understand the situation . .. I'm afraid I don't have the exact words, but perhaps the following saying will do. Speech is silver and silence is golden, if you don't want to make a fool of yourself. I think that what was said by the Hon. Members for Richelieu and Jonquiere was a clear indication that they don't know what they're talking about, and that the whole point of their speeches was basically to use an issue that is of fundamental importance to so many thousands of people as an excuse for political rhetoric. To consider the facts in chronological order, we have to go back to

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
November 1984, when the Government published a policy document under the title: A New Direction for Canada. This document was supposed to provide a plan and a timeframe for what was supposed to happen when, and to whom. So we get to the magic date and this particular group of Canadians is told that from now on they are no longer entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits, since any benefits they receive from their employer will be deducted.
This was in 1985, Madam Speaker. Today, in 1987, we are finally going to be given a chance to deal with a situation that has been dragging on for too long, and which in many cases has become a very serious problem.
Madam Speaker, as a result of endless protests, hundreds of petitions and numerous visits to Ottawa where people tried to get something done about this disgraceful case of discrimination, the Government finally showed its true colours last April. In April, it announced what it intended to do about the situation, after giving us all kinds of tentative solutions, none of which made much sense. In April the Government made its intentions clear when it tabled this Bill.
Quite recently, hardly 10-odd days ago, we were told: Listen, you in the Opposition, here is what we intend to do. So what is the reaction? We responded: In the interest of all these tens of thousands of people, as far as we are concerned we would have liked to have several days to debate this important question and the many injustices it raises; but in the interest of the tens of thousands of Canadian men and women who are frustrated and are waiting for fabulous amounts, we are prepared to co-operate to dispose of this matter in one single day. This was about ten days ago, Madam Speaker.
On the other hand, keeping in mind what I have just said, the first Government proposition to the Opposition on such a major issue was to hold the debate on this Bill on a Wednesday. And, as it happens, Wednesday is the shortest day of the week. And then they will claim, as did the Hon. Member for Jonquiere, that this is a great day for retired people.
It is a great day for retired people. First retired people can rejoice, second Government Members take credit for this decision which is woefully incomplete in many respects. They take credit for being responsible for this great day. However, if we had to define demagogy, I suggest this would be a good example.
The Hon. Member for Richelieu said that if the Government has been unable to deliver the goods until today the blame rests squarely on the Opposition. We were quite ready and we reacted immediately, as he said himself; we reacted immediately. This is June 1987, yet the problem dates all the way back to January 1985. So I would suggest that in either case Canadian men and women can see through such puffery, they will decide for themselves who is really guilty, who is really responsible for what, in my judgment, is indeed a black mark against this Government.
Madam Speaker, in my constituency and my own region, there are certainly about 400 or 450 Canadians who are directly affected by this Bill. These people have been waiting for months, more than a year, for the Government to give them what they were fully entitled to receive. These 400 people, at an important time of their life, made a decision based on what they were expecting to get, after examining the situation objectively and taking into account a very important factor for the economic well-being of their communities, as they saw that they could leave the labour market so that more young people could keep their jobs and support their families. For these 400 people, full unemployment insurance benefits were essential and even vital.
Suddently, they found that they had to make due with benefits which had been reduced, in many cases, to nil. Most of these people had contributed to the unemployment insurance plan for 20, 25 or 30 years and they were suddenly being told: You are no longer entitled to these benefits, or if so, only marginally.
It is only after being subjected to petitions, pressures and aggressive demands that the Government reversed its stand two, three or even four times, to give us finally what we now have before the House, namely Bill C-50.
Madam Speaker, I believe that all those who have been waiting for redress since their benefits were cut off are in the best position to understand who is responsible for this completely unacceptable situation.
We in the Opposition were and still are willing to co-operate. We shall co-operate as concerns the Bill which was called earlier today, and when the House adjourns this evening, the matter will be definitely settled and the people involved will be able to receive their cheques within a few weeks, at least 1 hope so. Among other things, this will be an opportunity for the Government to show it was serious when it spoke today about understanding and about generosity for these people who have been waiting for over a year because of these reductions.
In many respects, Madam Speaker, it would have been interesting to devote more than one day to this issue. We understand the extreme urgency of disposing of this Bill, so that the cheques can start going out as soon as possible. But having said that, I would be remiss if I did not indicate to you and to those concerned with this issue that it would have been important and even most relevant to keep on discussing this important and a number of its ramifications. I am referring here to the issue which I would described as discriminatory, most unfair and outright unreasonable. I had an opportunity before to demonstrate this point.
Let us imagine two Canadians, one working in the footwear industry, and the other in the manufacturing sector. Most everybody will recognize that in the footwear industry, salaries are somewhat average, not to say small in most cases. Clearly, Madam Speaker, an individual earning a modest salary does not have $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 at the end of the year to
June 9, 1987

invest in an RRSP. He is at the mercy, in a slavish sort of way, of the pension fund which his employer has established for his employees. Contributions are always based on the salary earned, the generosity of the company's financial statements, so that pension funds which are made available to employees are generally quite modest. I am referring to the first individual to which my example applies.
The other one, who worked in a factory and had been fortunate enough to contribute to a pension plan, seeing what is happening here tonight, will not try to negociate his participation in a private pension plan but will prefer and rightly so, to take the money he was prepared to invest in that plan and put it in what is called a RRSP. When they reach 55 years of age, both men will retire and to ensure their subsist-ance, they will depend exclusively on the pension paid by from their employers, which consist of contributions taken from their pay cheques during 25 years.
No need to say that that pension doesn't represent much and is hardly enough to live decently. After a whole life spent on a low paying job, all the worker can count on for his retirement is a limited income. In a context of social justice, he could also reasonably expect one year of unemployment insurance benefits. But it will not be the case under this Bill because this man will be told: "That's it, you earn $300 a month, we deduct it from your benefits and we give you the difference." In his case he will live way under the poverty threshold while the other man could earn a more reasonable income and invest $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 in a RRSP every year for about 30 years. That same worker who from the start, could look to a rosy future, will go to the unemployment insurance office to withdraw the full amount of his contributions; as I said, these will be higher than the contributions of his fellow worker who working in the footwear industry was paid smaller wages and we know that UI contributions are based on the salary earned. We have here a perfectly clear example, Madam Speaker, of totally unjustified and injustifiable situation, an absolutely discriminatory situation which would have warranted explanations and answers.
There is another situation which seems to be unbelievably unfair, and which is documented in dozens of files in my riding office. When plans were made by asbestos mines to lay-off workers, and hundreds of people were concerned, they had obviously been scheduled over six to 10 months. Those in managing positions with the company knew very well that they would be laid-off as of a certain date, while their colleagues were laid-off at a much faster rate and more expeditiously. From this group of employees who knew officially that they would be laid-off on a permanent and definite basis, a few left before the week of january the 1st; they had known for one to three months beforehand that they would be permanently and definitely laid-off. But in fact they were laid off in the first week of January. Everybody knows there is a two-week waiting period. Everybody knows that these about to be laid off, do not exhaust their holidays but keep them in order that immediately after being laid off they can count on a full salary which is
Unemployment Insurance
equivalent to paid holidays. Consequently, logically and mathematically, these people could not go to the UI office and file their claim for benefit. What happened? The legislation says, and very clearly contrary to many speeches we heard so far, at Section 4, paragraph (a): The Commission shall consider the entitlement to benefit of any claimant who made an initial claim for benefit before January 5, 1986.
For many, this legislation and its consequences represent a considerable improvement because it means several month qualifying periods, but for many whose situation I just described, there is no remedy to their problem, yet they are affected by the same situation of economic disaster in some area. Since they could not, because of a combination of circumstances, file their claim before January 5, the Government says: No, a line must be drawn, and they use as an example the fact that at age 65 one is entitled to old age security pension, but not at age 64, 11 months and 20 days. I accept that first example but I sincerely submit that in such a specific case, the individual who knew before January 5, 1985 that he or she would be laid off on a given date should be considered as all others who had the privilege, because it becomes a privilege, of filing an application before January 5. There is also the great injustice toward those who will be contributing thousands of dollars in unemployment insurance and who at the proper time will apply to obtain benefits but will be told: "Well, listen, you belong to a special group. You are not entitled to benefits unless you do this or that." Once again, Madam Speaker, it is an injustice, a discrimination and we would have liked to redress those grievances under a reasonable legislation which would have been fair and equal for all. We are told, and it was mentioned in a question, that for financial reasons, choices and restrictions had to be made as a result of the debt. On the other hand, billions are going to be spent to modernize defence while those individuals are entitled to expect minimum living wages. Such minimum living wages could be granted to them under a legislation which could be more reasonable and fairer.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, when I heard the Hon. Member denigrate the contribution made by the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), I thought he was being carried away and let it go by. But after hearing his speech, I realize it was ignorance of the facts that led him to make that comment on the speech made by the Hon. Member for Richelieu. First, concerning the individuals he is referring to, who had vacation leave and perhaps sick leave credits, it is agreed that those individuals can put their claim to the Unemployment Insurance Board's tribunal. As always, this is the law. It is there. That is the first thing.
Second, people who have no pension income are entitled to UI benefits as always. The aim of the bill is to say that pension income, income from sick leave, vacation leave and so forth is to be deducted for UI purposes. In other terms, people with $15,000 income and less are still eligible to unemployment insurance. And even above that the deduction is pro rated on

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
pension income. This is to point out that unemployment insurance income is unemployment insurance and not pension insurance, as 1 said.
Further, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), a colleague of the Hon. Member who just spoke, earlier said I was ignorant of unemployment insurance rules and this was why I suggested the Forget report's recommendations were drastic but there were others. As far as I am concerned, 1 was referring to proposals: how to save in the first place.
Second, if he says, as he read the Regulations to us, that people had to be available for work as a condition to being eligible to UI benefits, how does he explain that an early retiree who indicated he was not available for work would be entitled to benefits?
Clearly, this contradicts the purpose of Unemployment Insurance. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to tell me, first: Should he recognize that even today a lot of people have no pension fund, and are therefore entitled to Unemployment Insurance benefits, and it is unfortunate they have no pension fund because they find themselves penniless when they have none.
Second, the small-income people he was referring to are still eligible to UI benefits and the legislation in no way affects them.


Alain Tardif: Thank you, Madam Speaker, specially for allowing me to reply on this aspect of the arbitration board. I wish to tell my colleague that in the past two years, I personally submitted no fewer than 150 cases to the arbitration board. For your information, that board is composed of three people who assess the case brought them, after having seriously considered the analysis made by the Commission.
1 agree with you that, in some cases, the arbitration board might prove somebody right, but for your information, I repeat that clause 4(1) refers to any claimant:
-who made an initial claim for benefit before January 5, 1986.
My experience before the arbitration board allows me to say that following a submission made before it, where there is evidence the claim was filed on January 15, the rejection would soon follow, and to refer to my colleague's comments, it will always be possible to appeal to the Federal Court. For the information of my colleague, however, to do so means a two and a half year delay in many cases, when that level can be reached since, first, the Federal Court will not negotiate, question or revise the facts. I will reply secondly by asking a question: Imagine two people, one with a private pension plan, the other without. Both earn $20,000. Why does one receive full unemployment insurance benefits while the other does not get one damn cent? What do you tell those two people who paid the same contributions, who possibly worked in the same sector, for different employers, one contributing to a private pension fund while the other does not. Let us suppose there are layoffs and both have the same seniority, the same wages, the
same responsibility, even life expectancy. One is told: "You are entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits." The other: "You will not get a damn cent." What explanation do you give to that Canadian man or woman?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Any other questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne).


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to say a few words on this most important Bill, for it is a Bill that I do consider as most important indeed. It is very important, Madam Speaker, because in the following days and weeks, we will at last be in a position to provide payments for those people who had applied for unemployment insurance benefits and were retiring early before January 5, 1986, and we shall be glad that the matter is finally resolved after waiting so long, after the Opposition dragged its feet so long without possibly realizing the impact that such a delay in the legislation could have on thousands of taxpayers. But ultimately, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that today at last, we can have this debate on, and pass Bill C-50.
As you know, Madam Speaker, my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe started earlier by quoting a famous author whose name he did not mention, but who said more or less: Better shut up and look dumb than speak and prove that you are. Not to be outdone by him, let me tell him the motto of the Liberals, as Rivarol would say: "Doing nothing is an art. Not overdoing it is wisdom". And that is what the Liberals have done over the years.
1 fail to understand, in all honesty, because eventually the matter is going to be resolved, and we have agreed, in the three Parties, that people will be entitled to unemployment insurance if they presented a claim. I therefore fail to understand, Madam Speaker, why some Members, at least Members of the Official Opposition, said earlier today in this House: "Madam Speaker, it is a shame to see an irresponsible Government cause such irretrievable harm to the community of early retirement pensioners of Canada".
That shows one thing, it shows that opposition Members have short memories. Very very short memories. I want to remind them, Madam Speaker, that salaries and pensions were frozen at 5 per cent and 6 per cent while we had an inflation rate of 11 per cent, 12 per cent, 15 per cent. Madam Speaker, when the Liberals at the time took that action, when they did that to the Canadian people, I never saw, and I have read the proceedings, 1 took the trouble to read the proceedings of the House at the time, I have never seen any Liberal Member or Minister stand up and tell the former Primer Minister, Mr. Trudeau: "Look, what you are doing is not fair. You are hurting Canadian people. You are doing away with the basic rights of early retirees. You are removing fundamental rights from workers, mothers, and the economy".
June 9, 1987

No, Madam Speaker, all the Liberal Members, the 74 blockheads, as they would often be called by Mr. Parizeau, the former Pequiste Minister from Quebec, sat quietly in their chairs and said: "Our Prime Minister is right. We are not going to do anything. We are not going to say a word because he will get us off the track". You see, Madam Speaker, that is what the Opposition was like when they were in power.
I listened this morning as my colleague from Montreal- Sainte-Marie made this outrageous statement to the House: "Madam Speaker, the Gulf refinery in Montreal was closed by the Conservatives. As the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), I set up that survival committee. I save the jobs at the Gulf refinery". Madam Speaker, 1 took the trouble of looking into the Debates. I repeat, under the previous Liberal Government, three refineries closed down. Not one, but three in Montreal East. Three refineries and not one Liberal Member of the time stood up and said: We are going to set up a survival committee. No Liberal Member, no Minister, Madam Speaker, rose to tell his or her Prime Minister, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or Minister of Employment and Immigration: "What are you doing for our workers?" None, Madam Speaker!
Today, in this House, in the country, some are talking about social justice and equity ... We realize, Madam Speaker, how gifted the Liberals are in the art of deceit, how inconsistent they are in their actions to defend the interests of the Canadian people.
We must accept one thing. When we assumed power in 1984, we had some constraints, administrative constraints, a huge deficit due to a large degree to a careless administration, a deficit, Madam Speaker, which will mortgage for years to come future generations, my children, your children and their children.
Their mind was set on the short term, and on their own reelection instead of, the middle and the long term and the better interests of the Canadian people.
We will probably not have to remind them that they were the ones who allowed those at the top of the salary scale not to pay any tax. We will remind them the tax loopholes they left in the area of research, which left gaps of several billion dollars in the Canadian economy. And who was bearing the burden, Madam Speaker? The Canadian workers, the workers from Quebec, all those who paid taxes to a Government who was supposed to be responsible but who almost drove Canada bankrupt, put Canada in such a financial state that industrialized countries in general did not trust it anymore; they put the people of Canada in such a situation that it did not trust them, and we saw what happened in 1984, because of the commitments they did not keep, because of the promises they had made for several elections but they never fulfilled.
We will all remember the previous election, we will remember that in 1981, the former Liberal Hon. Member for my constituency, I don't remember his name very well, said the
Unemployment Insurance
following in a pamphlet: If we, in the Liberal Party, are reelected, we will increase the pension for widowers and widows who are between 60 and 64 years old. Madam Speaker, only a Progressive Conservative Government could put such a policy in place.
Due to sound management by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the Cabinet, we have achieved a $10 billion reduction in our deficit. Those $10 billion at a 10 percent interest rate mean savings of $1 billion in each and every coming year. That is $1 billion to be redistributed between social programs, to be shared by families most in need, that is $1 billion representing new opportunities for our upcoming youth, for future generations, and opportunities to live a good life and, most of all, to get some time during their life monies which they are entitled too.
Social justice calls for a long term and not a short term perspective. Social policy and social justice, Madam Speaker, must be considered in a global approach, in the context of decisions to be made for the middle and the long term. In other words, difficult decisions had to be made, but no outstanding politician in Canada or in the provinces even made his mark without some unpleasant courageous actions on the short term, decisions which time has proven to be the most judicious of all.
That is what our Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has done. That is precisely the decision he has made.
We have seen that on January 5, 1986, people who had made applications before that date. . . There had been a communication problem and in my opinion, the message had not been clear enough. The Minister said: "It is true. We are going to solve the problem." And we have done it. We are solving it today because we are discussing the matter.
Ninety-five percent of all those cases will be settled, people will have no more problems, they will be able to receive their unemployment insurance benefits. Some Opposition Members are saying: "We have convinced the Government to change its mind." But, Madam Speaker, only fools are never wrong. As regards our Minister of Employment and Immigration and our Prime Minister, they know how to recognize what is right, they know how to recognize what is called social justice, they know how to recognize fairness and it is for that fundamental reason that our Minister of Employment and Immigration tabled before this House a bill to pay, to refund early retirees. That is the main reason for Bill C-50.
I heard some colleagues in the New Democratic Party, particularly the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who said earlier: "We must take care of the members of our Forces." But, Madam Speaker, members on the other side are the first ones to be willing to stop our contribution to NATO. They are the first ones to be prepared to withdraw the Canadian Army and put it God knows where.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
But for them, there is no problem, money is no problem, we can always print more. It is nothing to worry about. They do not know what economy means, that is why they are in the Opposition and will stay. However, what is sure is that when we look at the whole debate on Bill C-50, we must recognize that all Members who have taken part in this debate, in particular those of the Conservative caucus, who made representations, who heard in each of their respective ridings the chairman and people from ARSAC, FADOQ, or from senior citizens' federations, explain to the workers' unions, to our Members of Parliament what they have been through in technical terms, because the problem is not one of substance but of technical nature and of bad communications-
We told them they were right, we went to see our caucus, we discussed the whole matter and the Minister understood our point. If we are debating Bill C-50 today in this House we certainly do not owe it to the Opposition, to the Liberals and even less to the New Democrats. Quite the opposite, Madam Speaker. Some of my colleague, like the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), said earlier that Liberals and New Democrats have been delaying the study of this Bill. I saw the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) rise and use an unparliamentary word, which I shall not repeat, saying that they had always been willing to participate. It was a half-truth, Madam Speaker, because if you think of the debates we had in the last few weeks, you will realize that the Liberals and New Democrats have kept delaying the study of some bills to prevent this one from being debated. Liberals and New Democrats have been filibustering to prevent the Government from paying benefits to the early retirees affected by this legislation.
Madam Speaker, a while ago I was listening to my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe who was telling us about the difference between people with pension funds and those with RRSPs. He mentioned the case of a person earning $20,000 a year who has a pension fund and another one also making $20,000 who contributes to an RRSP. Let me remind him that to get an RRSP that will give him the same benefits as a pension fund he must pay much higher contributions than someone with a pension fund, to which the employer contributes 50 per cent or even 100 per cent.
Madam Speaker, these people will eventually be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and I cannot understand why my colleague for Richmond-Wolfe and the Opposition are doing all kinds of calculations to demonstrate that those who contributed to RRSPs will be able to get both an annuity and unemployment insurance benefits while those with a pension fund will not be eligible to UI. Madam Speaker, if two people retire from the same company, CIP for instance, and get a pension and if one of was also contributing to an RRSP, none of them will get unemployment insurance because they both have the same pension fund. That is of an absolute logic that the Opposition is unable to understand and that is why, Madam Speaker, we have known such a huge deficit during the 20 lean years of the Liberal government. They did not know how to count. The only thing they knew was to try and
play politics in a demagogic way, as was so cleverly demonstrated by the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif). '
You know, Madam Speaker, my colleague for Nickel Belt says a lot of things perhaps he should not say. Maybe he should listen, maybe he should learn from our Government how responsibilities must be taken on.
You know, Madam Speaker, it is easy to criticize for one who sits on the other side, for one who does not know what it is to take a decision that is appropriate for tomorrow's economical growth, for the future generations, for social justice and equity, that is easy for one who has never been able, who has never had the chance to take such a decision, and who will never have a chance to do it because he is leaning towards the New Democratic Party. Those are the people, Madam Speaker, who prefer to criticize and be irresponsible rather than sit around a table or come to the House and say: Yes, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has recognized that workers who took an early retirement lacked technical information. They will be refunded, you will obtain our support, we will stop from making difficulties about the various bills so that finally, this responsible Government can grant to those who take an early retirement their basic rights which are being upheld. And we will continue to fight for them despite the systematic opposition by Liberals and New Democrats and we will do them justice and tell them: Yes, you are entitled to that, you paid for it. Yes, you are entitled to that in legal or technical terms because you paid your contributions, but we would also tell them: "Unemployment insurance is not a pension fund, but it is meant for the unemployed and the needy."
I sometimes receive at my office an individual who gets $150 per week and is caught because he or she has a side line and has to refund. It is unfair that person has a family with two, three or four children. The unemployment insurance policy is unfair when someone can collect benefits of $1,200, $1,500, $2,000 without being cut while an unemployed family man with two children to look after and who earns $150 per week is penalized because he has enough courage to have a side line and he is told: "No, you will be penalized." Madam Speaker, that is an inequity that must be changed, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration is addressing it. This Government is addressing it in a responsible way. And I do not see why an opposition that is being destroyed by internecine divisions, an opposition that is destroyed at the level of its ideology cannot accept it, cannot co-operate in building a strong Canada, a Canada that will respect every region and every social class, that will put everything back in its rightful place, that will ensure that this country is the greater for it.
Since a number of my colleagues want to take part in this debate, I will give others an opportunity to do so. In conclusion, although it will be difficult for you to do so, I would ask the opposition to find the will to co-operate for once, to give back to people who earned it what is rightfully theirs, and to
June 9, 1987

co-operate in a forthright, honest and non-partisan way, as the Hon. Member for Richmond suggested. This will show Canadians how much the House of Commons and the Canadian Government work for the common good rather than electoral interests, as the opposition is so adept at doing.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, we heard the non-demogogue. We have heard a calm speech by the Hon. Member who just spoke.


John Kenneth Gormley: Just like yours, John.


John R. Rodriguez: I want the Hon. Member to give me some specific advice in responding to this person, a Mr. Dominic Cosintino from John Street North in Hamilton, who wrote:
In my case (and probably many others as well) I retired early at age 57, not by choice, but because my plant (Stelco Inc., Canada Works, Hamilton) closed its doors. Some employees were allowed to retire previous to final closure, as operations were moved to other plants in Quebec and Ontario.
To enable junior employers to transfer to other Stelco Plants, older employees were asked to delay their departure so operations could be wound down in an orderly fashion and to maintain customer compliance.
Since I was employed as a truck loader in the Shipping Department I was asked to delay my departure until complete closure came about. This occurred March 31, 1986, at which time I retired. By having acceded to Stelco's request I find myself disqualified from the proposed forgiveness by not retiring before January 5, 1986.
May I reiterate that I did not choose either my retirement or the date of it. I retired only because of plant closure.
Thank you for any efforts on my (our) behalf.
The Hon. Member talks about social justice. I want to know what answer he and his Tory Party have for the Cosintinos of this country.


Michel Champagne: You know. Madam Speaker, the first thing that is prompted by the Hon. Member's question, and the first thing 1 might suggest would be to tell him he should resign if he is unable to solve those cases. This is the proof the New Democratic Member should quite simply go home and vacate his seat to a competent Conservative who certainly would defend his constituents before the minister in charge, before this House and before a Parliament and an honest caucus which, quite evidently despite the shortcomings of both opposition parties, is successfully protecting the interests of Canadians.
Madam Speaker, there is something in the Hon. Member's statements that makes me wonder, and if he wants to listen, perhaps he will stop putting that kind of question. You know, one thing comes to my mind. I may not be his age. My daughter certainly is not, since she is two years old. But we have a country to build. We must be responsible to all Canadians, both workers and non-workers. We have to be
Unemployment Insurance
responsible for current policies, future policies, policies that will ensure that each and every Canadian, quite apart from the New democrat ideology, the Liberal ideology, the ruling Party ideology, we will have to put in place policies that will meet the needs of the people, not on the short-term, electoral level, as the opposition has always done, not on chameleon positions as the New Democratic Party always did, because, Madam Speaker, when they feel like it they vote along with the Liberals, and when they feel like it they vote along with the Conservatives. They are trying to spare each side, but they are sparing nothing. The only thing they are sparing is the seat of their pants, because they remind stuck to their seats for fear of losing them.
But, Madam Speaker, when one is part of a responsible government, led by a Prime Minister who is committed first and foremost to justice and fairness, who believes that each and every Canadian has an equal, basic right, then, as our Minister of Employment and Immigration did, one tables a Bill C-50. As responsible Members, we support him 100 per cent in his efforts. And all we hope for is for the opposition, who understands nothing, to at least follow the example of a Government that has the common interest to heart.


Alain Tardif: Madam Speaker, no wonder they rank so low in the opinion polls in Quebec. Considering the kind of answers . . . Two simple questions. Two very simple questions: If you were so concerned about the problems of thousands of retirees, why is Bill C-50 dated April 1, when the problem goes back to January, 1986? Second question: If the Liberal Government's policies were so debatable, why, after spending $9 million on the Forget Commission, after listening carefully to Charlies Brown's 59 sheep who came up with 90 recommendations, why isn't there a single damned recommendation in the Bill? Why?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I would like to draw the attention . . . Order, please! I would like to draw the attention of the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) to the kind of language used in this House. I made the same remark to one of his colleagues earlier this evening, and perhaps he could be more careful.
The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne).


Michel Champagne: Please sit down, sir. Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asked two very specific questions. First, why Bill C-50 was tabled on April 1 and why it took us until June to get to the second and third reading stage? My answer, since he either did not understand what I was saying or wasn't listening, is that the Opposition did everything that was humanly possible-and it certainly did a good job-to hold up the various Bills that were on the table and thus prevent the Minister of Employment and Immigration from introducing Bill C-50.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
As for the second part of his question, when the Hon. Member refers to polls and the Prime Minister, I may remind him that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is certainly not in a very good position to finish his current mandate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Chair realizes that it is getting late. However, I think it would be much easier to proceed if all Members tried to maintain order in the House, and I am referring to both sides of the House, front benches as well as back benches.
The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) may finish his comments.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, whatever the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) may have to say about it, I shall continue to defend the interests of a responsible Government. I shall continue to defend the interests of those who come to my office and tell me they have problems. We shall defend those interests. I shall continue to make representations to my responsible Ministers, and, Madam Speaker, in concluding, I shall continue to urge the Official Opposition and the New Democrats to help us get this important Bill through the House so that we can make those payments to the people entitled to receive them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the next question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
June 9, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: 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 please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you would seek the guidance of the House, you would find a disposition to agree to reverse the last vote on this particular vote rather than calling on individual Members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to order made Monday, June 8, 1987, the Bill stands referred to Committee of the Whole.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
(Division No. 138)
++YEAS


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
	Members	
Belsher	Epp	LopezBlackburn	(Provencher)	Mailly(Jonquiere)	Fennell	MarinBlais	Ferland	MartinBlenkarn	Fretz	MazankowskiBlouin	Friesen	McCainBosley	Gagnon	McCrossanBouchard	Gass	McKenzieBradley	Gerin	McKnightBrightwell	Gormley	McMillanBrisco	Gottselig	MinakerCaldwell	Grise	MitgesCardiff	Hamelin	NicholsonClark	Hamilton	(Niagara Falls)(Brandon-Souris)	Hicks	NickersonClifford	Holtmann	PetersonCochrane	Howie	PlourdeCollins	Jacques	PorterComeau	James	RavisCooper	Johnson	RedwayCorbett	(Bonavista-T rinity-	ReidDarling	Conception)	ReimerDella Noce	Joncas	RicardDesjardins	King	St. GermainDesrosiers	Landry	ScottDo mm	Lanthier	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dorin	Lawrence	ScowenEdwards	Layton	SparrowEllis	Leblanc	StackhouseLewis	Stevens
Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, in this Bill the Government is partly reversing itself to allow persons who applied for unemployment insurance benefits, and who were early retirees or retirees prior to January 5, 1986, to get their unemployment insurance. If the Government were to go all the way and pay all of those retirees beyond January 5, 1986, even though they may not have obtained a second job, how much does he and his department estimate the cost to be of the plan?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, if 1 understood correctly the question put by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I think that what the Hon. Member is really asking me to do is, in some way, to abrogate the Bill and arrange to pay all the people who were already receiving payments from pension plans and who would be claiming unemployment insurance benefits.
I think the position has its merits. However, the Government has calculated that the costs connected with this Bill for 198586, and if I were to act along the lines you are suggesting-in

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance
any case, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Bill represents a cost of $295 million.
If we repealed all the new rules as requested by the Hon. Member, it would mean additional costs of $95 million for 1985-86, $305 million for 1986-87 and $280 million for 198788.
In my opinion, these would be excessive costs and I do not think that we could face such an increase.
In other words, under this Bill, we are already bearing additional costs of $295 million, and as I have just pointed out, if we did as my colleague asks, it would mean $685 million more, which the Government is not in a position to pay.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, in his announcement in November, 1984, the Minister of Finance denied unemployment insurance benefits in part or in whole to all those retirees who attempted to obtain unemployment insurance. Here we are in 1987 and the Minister is bringing forward a Bill in which the Government is saying all right, we made a mistake. Does the Minister intend to pay interest on the unemployment insurance benefits to those who were entitled to receive them but did not prior to January 5, 1986?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, it is not a question of admitting that there was a mistake or not. The principles have not changed at all. In November 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that those who received income from pensions, which is considered income from employment, could not at the same time receive unemployment insurance benefits, which are also considered income from employment.
In other words, the established principle has remained the same. However, for reasons of understanding and as it seemed that, for all kinds of reasons, some people might sincerely and honestly not have understood our message before January 5, 1986, we decided to make this measure retroactive to January 5, 1986 and consider that these people had made in good faith a claim which should be honoured.
I would like to correct something which my colleague said. The principle has not changed in the last two years. You can say if you like that you have succeeded in making the Government change its mind. This is not important for us. What is important is to have been fair for the preretirees who honestly believed that the Government should respect its policy and to have decided not to apply to the letter a provision which these people might have misunderstood. This is what we recognize.
I repeat that we are continuing to apply the very same principles as before, and I would like the Hon. Member to remember it during the rest of this debate. The Government does not admit that anyone should receive benefits from two sources of employment income, in other words pension funds and the Unemployment Insurance Fund.


John R. Rodriguez: This is rather confusing. The Minister said that the Government enunciated the principle in 1984, the principle being that pension income is income for unemployment insurance purposes. If the principle has not changed, why is he now saying that if a retiree gets a second job and gets laid off he can continue to draw the pension and full UI benefits? It seems to me that the principle is flawed and illogical. After all, the person will still get pension income but because he or she was able to latch on to a job they can collect full UI benefits as well as the pension income.
To me that establishes two classes of retirees, the first being made up of those fortunate to obtain another job after having lost their job. We know from statistics that an older worker has one chance in ten of getting another job. Rather than establishing a principle the Government has further layered the UI and created a class structure at that level in the unemployment insurance program. Surely the principle lacks coherence and logic.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, my friend does not understand that in the world in which we live today it is not unusual to start another career. You usually receive a pension after your first career. Someone who takes mandatory retirement at the age of 50 can have another career for 20 years. The principle that those who receive pensions cannot collect unemployment insurance applies to the first part of their lives. If you start a second job and work for four, five, or six years and then lose your job you can collect UI benefits which apply to that part of your life.
That is something which the Member and I will have to consider because in the new world of work many Canadians will face the reality of having a second career. I want to emphasize that the principle is the same. Pensions and unemployment insurance cannot be received together. However, when you start another career-


John R. Rodriguez: That is illogical.


Benoît Bouchard: It may be illogical for the Hon. Member but it is logical for Canadians and it is Canadians whom we serve, not him.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, nothing the Minister said has convinced me that the principles are maintained or are logical. Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment:
That Bill C-50 be amended in Clause 2(1) by striking out lines 11, 12, 13 and
15 and renumbering the remaining line 14 as line 11.
I have sent you a copy, Madam Chairman.


David Orlikow: Madam Chairman, I want to support that amendment. I was happy to hear the Minister say that the principle enunciated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November, 1984, has not been changed and that the
June 9, 1987

Government stands by that principle. If there is one group of Canadians who will know what that means and who will resent what the Government has done, it is members of the Armed Forces. We have heard Members on the government side say how proud and supportive they are of the Armed Forces. However, let us look at what this Bill does to members of the Armed Forces.
A man or woman joins the Armed Forces at the age of 18 or 20. As a member of the Armed Forces, unemployment insurance premiums are deducted from their pay. After 20 years that member of the Armed Forces retires, not because he or she wants to but because the regulation require them to do so. Therefore, at age 40 to 45 those people are forced out of the Armed Forces and immediately begin to draw their pensions. They do not have any choice but are required to do so.
That pension is too small to live on. Their home may have been in Winnipeg or Vancouver but they served a number of years in Halifax; Saint John, New Brunswick; or Ottawa and they want to move home. They have to relocate, buy a home, and find a job. It takes them some time to find a job. They are drawing a very small pension and, after having paid unemployment insurance premiums for 20 years, they should be able to get unemployment insurance benefits. They can get their benefits, but only after the deduction is made for their pension.
I received a letter from a Winnipeg resident who lives in the constituency of the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine to whom he wrote first. The Member did not have the courtesy or decency to reply to the letter, perhaps because he did not care or perhaps because he did not know what to say. I will put this letter on the record and perhaps the Minister will give me a reply which I can send on to this person.
He says:
You are no doubt aware of the government action in altering the unemployment insurance (UI) program pertaining to severance pay and pension income.
1 am a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and will be retiring from the forces on t? Aug 85 after serving 33 years.
While the prospect of entering the civilian job market and establishing a second career does not greatly worry me, there are of course some personal concerns about the availability of suitable employment.
I have been contributing to UI since Armed Forces personnel were included. I currently contribute 46.84 each month to the scheme from which I can now claim no benefit. Under the government changes to the plan Armed Forces personnel have become victims of what may be called an insurance scam. We contribute premiums with no opportunity to benefit.
I was informed of the impending legislation at CFB Winnipeg in January '85 when making inquiries regarding my retirement benefits.
I wrote to my MP. Mr. Dan McKenzie, Winnipeg-Assiniboine. stating my view that the changes to the UI plan were unfair in that we were paying for nothing.
1 likened the situation to a family owning two cars. One car becomes damaged in an accident and the insurance company refused payment because the family has another car to drive.
I have paid into the UI, as Unemployment Insurance, not an income replacement scheme. I may soon be unemployed. Certainly 1 will have some income but it will be considerably less than I had anticipated should I be unable to secure employment.
Unemployment Insurance
Members of the forces have obviously had the foresight to maintain employment on a career basis with the aim of an annuity to assist in later life. We have served under conditions of service which do not apply to most civilian careers.
Frequent transfers, uprooting families from jobs and schools, rented and often sub-standard housing, hazardous work conditions and other vagaries of the profession.
At an age where a majority of civilian career workers are reaching an income and seniority peak, armed forces members are released from the service to attempt to establish a second career, normally at ages between 47 and 55.
Many members on release are in a transition period for some time. They move to a new location, they buy their first home, they are "Putting Down Roots" for the first time. Finding employment under these conditions is difficult. Not all military trades and professions are immediately transferable to civilian occupations. Unemployment Insurance always provided a "cushion" during that transition period.
Let me stop there for a moment. This member of the Forces obviously did not get a reply from his Member of Parliament, the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). Let me continue:
In a letter signed by Michael H. Wilson, Minister of Finance, 1 am informed that:
"The justification for the change in the treatment of pension income relates to the primary principle behind UI, which is to provide income protection to people who are without a job and without earnings. Someone receiving money from a previous employer in the form of a pension or separation pay cannot be said to be meeting these requirements. The change eliminates double payments and reinforces the objective of UI as an income replacement scheme".
Mr. Wilson's reference to "double payments" is nonsense. The Government is eliminating their "one payment" because 1 had the foresight to work at a career which provided some pension security. If it is the Government's intention to eliminate a percentage of the working population of Canada from UI benefits, it should also eliminate those same workers from paying premiums.
As you may detect in this letter, my reaction is one of anger. I feel cheated of even the possibility of drawing any benefit from unemployment insurance should I be unable to secure employment. As selfish as this view may appear, it is a view shared by a great many fellow service members.
He concludes his letter as follows:
It is a situation which makes me regret my 1984 vote for the Conservative party.
1 would like the Minister to tell me what answer 1 can give to satisfy this member of the Armed Forces and many others who feel exactly as he does.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, I listened carefully to the letter of the former member of the Armed Forces read by my colleague from Winnipeg North. Since the Government will be allocating $300 million to the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the benefit of all Canadians, including members of the Armed Forces, I believe that if such a Canadian has questions to ask, we have answers to give him.
My answer will be much shorter as it is simply a question of logic. The Hon. Member recommends that we eliminate Section 2 (b) of the definition, which states:

"Arising out of service in the Canadian Forces or in any police force".

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance

This would mean that, as there would be a contradiction between the amendments and the Bill itself, we would be unable to pay all the former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have requalified for benefits in the last 18 months. Millions of dollars in benefits could not be paid, especially as there is a relatively high rate of re-employment among members of the Armed Forces.
However, I can accept some of the comments made by the Hon. Member. This is a universal system to which all Canadians contribute, but naturally they are not all expected to collect from it. In the present situation, the Government is addressing the question of equity, and gives to members of the Armed Forces, police forces, the RCMP and others who will requalify the possibility of collecting unemployment insurance benefits when they lose their second job.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on the amendment.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Chairman, 1 think the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is really worthwhile, since it tends to completely eliminate discrimination against older workers. Contrary to what the Minister says, his principles are quite flexible. He says first of all that a person who has pension income should not receive unemployment benefits. However, this principle no longer applies once that person gets a second job. After this second job, the first principle is forgotten. Mister Minister, the Government will have to make up its mind. It is no use juggling with concepts to make people believe-
We already know, Mr. Minister, that people in the Armed Forces, that people in the RCMP, we already know, as the Hon. Member for Jonquiere has said, that people who lose their jobs because of a plant shutdown, those people have worked for 25 or 30 years, they have paid unemployment insurance contributions, so now the Minister and the Conservative Government want us to tell all those people in Murdochville and others working for companies closing down: Ladies and gentlemen, you older workers, it has been decided that you are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
The principle the Minister is explaining to us reminds me of someone who owns an apartment building and takes out a fire insurance policy. All of a sudden there are too many fires in a given neighbourhood, so the insurance company makes a decision and tells the people: You will not be covered for the first fire, but continue to pay your premiums and should fire break out a second time, then we will pay you.
Mr. Minister, your are off base. You are way off base with respect to the thousands of older workers. The Minister would have us believe this will cost between $550 million and $600 million, yet the same Government spent $3 billion to reimburse people who had savings of $60,000 in western banks, people who knew the rules. But now the Minister is saying: No, the Government cannot spare any money. First, the Minister is
openly misleading the people. This is not Government money, it is the money of the employers and the money of the employees. Second, the UI fund does not belong to the Government, it is the money of workers. The workers and their employers decided to set up a fund to protect themselves in case of lay-offs.


Mr. Blais:: Unemployment, that is what it is!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Exactly. When you lose your job. 1 am happy to see that the Conservative Members agree. When you look for a second job, you are entitled to UI benefits. But then, the Government says no. The workers in Bellechasse who will be looking tomorrow for another job because they have been laid off would like to get their UI benefits, but the Hon. Member for Bellechasse says no. When you are looking for another job, you are not entitled to the full benefits. But when you have found another job and embraced a new career that may last five or ten years, according to the Minister, after 20 weeks the principle has now changed.
I wish the Minister would break down this $285 millions he is talking about. We all know how much it costs the Unemployment Insurance Commission and not the Government in 1985 to reimburse retired workers, but who exactly will benefit from the projected $265 millions or so, how many people are actually affected? I would appreciate some precision about the numbers and about the principle at work. Why is this principle rather flexible? If you qualify for a second job, you lose the benefits, but for the first one, the principle applies.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, it is not easy to reply to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part), because he said at the outset that we are "off the track". I don't know how many are on his side, but some of them have often changed "tracks" on the way. I am simply asking him to be logical and understand that in 1987, some people stop working, either through mandatory or voluntary retirement: that is called pre-retirement. There are people in the Armed Forces who retire when they are 40 years old, others retire when they are between 45 and 50 years of age: We say that these people are getting money from employment, something you just cannot deny; therefore, the unemployment insurance rule states: You are entitled to benefits if you do not get money from another job. That's exactly what's happening when people are collecting a pension.
Please, when you had the floor, I did not try to interrupt you! When you qualify for a second job, it's not the rule that changes, but the facts. You pay premiums, you begin a new career and if, after a while, you lose your job, you are entitled to benefits because of the premium you paid, because, again, your pension fund applies to your first job ... All of this is logical. But you should not try to adapt logic to daily reality. Otherwise, we would end up in a mess such as yours: between $3 billion and $4 billion deficit in the unemployment insurance account. By 1989, we expect to completely balance the unemployment insurance account.
June 9, 1987

You are mixing things up, you are saying that it is an employer-employee fund. The federal Government is contributing $2.8 billion, which represents over 25 percent of the unemployment insurance funds. This is a whole package which must be dealt with as a whole. The Government states that retired people with a pension-be honest now-will collect unemployment insurance benefits if their pension income is $5,000. Only those who are paid a $15,000 pension will not get unemployment insurance benefits. Benefits are progressively eliminated as the level of pension income goes up. Yes, but let us call a spade a spade. The older workers who are receiving $5,000 will collect unemployment insurance benefits. But it is clear that a person who is getting a $35,000 pension a year should not, a priori, collect $15,000 in unemployment insurance benefits just because he has paid premiums.
1 suggest that unemployment insurance benefits exist for people who have lost their jobs, who have no employment income and who are looking for a job. Elowever, we recognize that for those who have started a second career and who are paying premiums, it's not the principle but reality which has changed. It's reality which has changed, and you will have to admit that today, because people will have a second career which will last, not five or ten years, but 20 or 25 years, for when people reach age 50, they can start a career which may last 20 years, contributing premiums for 20 years. When they stop, according to the legislation which will be in force at the time, they will act accordingly.
We are trying to be logical, and I think we have been from the start; if we made adjustments, it is because we felt we had to take into account new facts such as a second career. The Government was motivated by fairness and justice for those to whom the new legislation and regulation have not been properly explained; that's why it added $65 million to establish a proper balance. I think that the Government has done its job. done its job.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Chairman, if I understand the proposed amendment correctly, it would restrict the definition of pension to simply being pension under the Canada Pension Plan. As a result, an individual could not have his or her unemployment insurance benefits cut because they received pension arising out of employment or arising out of service in the Canadian Forces or any police force or under a provincial pension plan.
Under this amendment, unemployment insurance benefits could only be cut for those who receive pension under the Canada Pension Plan. As we know, that only takes effect at age 65. I see the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) nodding his head so 1 presume I understand his amendment correctly. It is a worth-while amendment because it restricts the harshness of this Bill, and while it is the best we can do on this clause, I think it is something which would certainly go a long way in making this Bill more acceptable. It
Unemployment Insurance
would no longer impinge upon people in the Armed Forces or police forces who were forced to retire early. It would not impinge upon those who work for Northern Electric or Bell Telephone who are forced to retire early, nor people who come under a provincial pension plan of any kind.
This raises the whole question of the real reason for this Bill. During the debate tonight, Hon. members from the government side have said this Bill is necessary-
An Hon. Member; Desirable.


William Warren Allmand: -or desirable, whatever you wish. I was repeating some of the terminology used earlier this evening and during the day. Those Hon. Members said the Bill was necessary because unemployment insurance was never meant to be a pension plan. They implied that when people went on pension, they should not have the right to unemployment insurance benefits. I must point out again that the principle control mechanism in the Unemployment Insurance Act is that one must be ready and available for work. If a person in effect does retire, taking their early retirement pension, then no one is suggesting they should receive unemployment insurance benefits. A lot of people opposite do not seem to understand that. No one is suggesting that someone who is not ready, willing and available for work should receive unemployment insurance benefits.
The problem is for those people who receive an early retirement pension but are still ready and available for work because they are only age 45, 50, 55 or 60 years. They have a lot of good years left in them. They are receiving an early retirement pension and are ready and available for work. However, we have the control mechanism on abuse. If they are really using their unemployment benefits to retire, then the control mechanism is in the Act that they are not ready and available for work.
The discriminatory nature of all these measures-and I am glad the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is restricting this definition of pension-is that while the Government has tried to cut back on employment insurance benefits for those who receive an early retirement pension, it does not cut back on their unemployment insurance if they retire early, do not get an early retirement pension, but are able to live on rents, dividends from stock or bonds, or types of income other than employment income. There was no attempt to do that. So it is very discriminatory.
I am pleased that the Hon. Member has put forward this amendment. We will support it because it restricts in a large measure the scope of this Bill. I give notice to the Minister that discrimination would still remain in the Bill and it would be essential to knock out all those provisions which discriminate between those who apply for their unemployment insurance benefits before January 1, 1986, and those who apply after. That is unacceptable and we will deal with that as soon as we have this amendment accepted by the Minister. I am sure he will see the reason for it.

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, 1 am really sorry but 1 think I have the same argument in English as I do in French. I have already said that we need the amendments to be in accordance with the law. Any kind of exclusion would mean there is no accordance with the law. I think my hon. friend would like us to be very legitimately in accordance with the law. That is the reason why I believe that this amendment is not reasonable.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Chairman, I am rising in support of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. I would like to ask the Minister a question in connection with the amendment.
As the Minister knows, members of the Armed Forces and members of the RCMP have served Canada for many years. They have paid contributions into the unemployment insurance fund. These individuals, these members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, have in fact assumed all along that because they had paid into this fund in good faith that they would then be in a position, if they were still actively looking for work and were unable to find employment, to draw upon unemployment insurance.
These individuals are forced to retire at an early age by the policies of the Armed Forces and the RCMP. The Special Committee on Equality Rights recommended that this type of forced early retirement be eliminated. But it has not been eliminated. The reality is that men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces and in the RCMP are in a position in which at the age of 45, 50, 55 they are thrown on to the job market. It is true that they have a pension, but in many cases they want to continue working.
As the correspondent to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, pointed out, in many cases they have additional expenses involved in relocating from the Armed Forces, or relocating from where they may be serving with the RCMP. For example, they may be serving in Europe, in Lahr or Baden with the Armed Forces. They have assumed that they would have this money available, money which they paid into UI while they actively seek work.
The Minister represents men and women in the Armed Forces. He has members of the RCMP in his constituency. 1 have the honour of representing the constituency of Burnaby. I have a couple of hundred members of the Armed Forces in my riding who, in fact, are serving not only in Canada but in Europe as well. How can the Minister, and how can members of the Conservative Government and caucus, possibly support the betrayal, the breach of trust and the breach of contract which this Bill represents by denying to those members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP the right to apply for unemployment insurance if they are still actively looking for work when they are forced to retire from the forces and from the RCMP? How can the Minister possibly defend that policy?
Surely he recognizes that it is indefensible. Surely he recognizes that by supporting this amendment and by his Tory colleagues supporting it he would at least be keeping faith with the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP who have served the country and who do not deserve to be stabbed in the back the way the Minister is doing.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, of course I will not support the amendment. 1 am sorry. I have a great deal of respect for those people in the Armed Forces and in the RCMP. Giving UI or not to the people for whom we have a lot of respect is not the basis upon which we have to make such considerations. I agree with the Hon. Member that the people from the Armed Forces, from the RCMP and from the police forces across Canada have to take mandatory retirement sometimes at the age of 40 or 45 years. But those people have a pension. If the pension is too small, then, at that time, they have the right to make up the difference with their UI benefits. I refer to an amount lower than $15,000. That is what we call equity. At 40 or 45 years of age we are usually looking for another job. A great many times we have the possibility of getting a job, and at that time to requalify.
If we have to take those people out of the definition, then how can we give back that money to those people who requalified since January 5, 1986?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Chairman, I have a supplementary question. The Minister should know that it is very difficult for people in their late forties and fifties to find other employment at a time when there is a very high level of unemployment in the country. I wish to ask the Minister a very specific supplementary question.
In view of the fact that these individuals, the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, have paid into the unemployment insurance fund, in some cases for many, many years, in good faith, and they are now being denied eligibility for unemployment insurance, is the Minister at the very least prepared to return the contributions which these people have paid into the fund, with interest, since they are obviously eligible for unemployment insurance? Will the Minister at least return the contributions that they have made in good faith over the years?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, I will be brief. I do not know of any type of insurance company which returns premiums.


David Orlikow: You took the money under false pretences.


Benoît Bouchard: I cannot understand that type of philosophy. We are dealing with an insurance. When we do not need this insurance because we have a job-


Svend Johannes Robinson: They don't have a job.


Benoît Bouchard: And they have a pension. A pension is money coming from employment. The employment rules are very clear. We cannot obtain money from both sources. I think that
June 9, 1987

is very clear. I am sure that if the Hon. Member wants to make just a small effort he will understand.


George Baker: Madam Chairman, the Minister said that he did not know of any insurance money that was returned. I do not know of any insurance program into which one pays money and when one has an accident the company does not pay. If one had insurance on one's car and had an accident, then the insurance company pays. What the Government is doing is this. The Minister says that it will collect unemployment insurance. It will make people pay the insurance premium and when they are out of a job it is not going to pay the insurance.
Under the same Bill, if an employer pays in and the employee pays in and the employment is found not to be insurable, then it is paid back to the employer.
In the Bill "pension" means any retirement pension "(a) arising out of employment". I suppose we can understand that. That is the intent of the Government. The Bill goes on to state: "arising out of service in the Canadian Forces or in any police force". In other words they are not really in employment. They are not being employed. The Bill states that the Canada Pension Plan is not paid out from employment or the provincial pension plan is not paid out from employment. The Minister then turns around and says: "We do not want to pay unemployment insurance to somebody making over $30,000 a year".
Under the Bill, one cannot earn more than $35,500 per year, because then one would have to start paying it back.
I see that our time is running out. I do not completely agree with the amendment. What we should be returning to is what the situation was under the Liberal Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: -that is that all people who pay into the insurance scheme can collect insurance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: We do not say: "Oh well, you know, people who paid in under the Armed Forces, they cannot collect. Police forces cannot collect. Provincial employees cannot collect. Canada Pension Plan people cannot collect". I suggest to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt that what he has proposed is perhaps the second best thing. He should change his thinking back to what the situation was under the Liberal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


George Baker: That was that we paid out. If they paid in, we paid out. We did not betray them as this Government is doing.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It being 10 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 8, 1987, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to complete the committee stage of the Bill now before the House.
Unemployment Insurance
Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived: Yeas, 11; Nays, 65.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: On division.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 60; Nays, 10.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 9 carry?

June 9, 1987
Unemployment Insurance


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 10 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Mr. Bouchard, seconded by Mr. Hockin, moves that Bill C-50, an Act respecting the treatment of pension payments in determining certain unemployment insurance benefit entitlements and to amend the Unemployment insurance Act, 1971, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It has been a long night for all of us. I think the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The vote is tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Let's have it now.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is the following one-may I dispense?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we now voting on third reading or concurrence?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am now taking the vote on the motion to concur.


William Warren Allmand: What did we vote on before?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Would it be easier if the Chair repeated the question?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It has been a long evening for all of us. The Chair would-


John R. Rodriguez: A point of order, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


An Hon. Member:: I thought we had done that on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would appreciate a little quiet so that we all know what we are voting on. I will read the question. The question is-


John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I want to know what it is we are voting on. If it is concurrence-


An Hon. Member:: That is what she will tell us.


John R. Rodriguez: Just settle down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will please sit.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Listen to the Speaker and you will find out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is the following one: Mr. Bouchard, seconded by Mr. Hockin, moves that Bill C-50, an Act respecting the treatment of pension payments in determining certain unemployment insurance benefit entitlements and to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be concurred in.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise.
June 9, 1987


William Warren Allmand: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: No. Sit down.


An Hon. Member:: The vote has been called. There is no point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 declare the motion carried.
When shall the Bill be read the third time? Pursuant to order made Monday, June 8, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benoît Bouchard: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to order made Monday, June 8, 1987, the division stands deferred until 3.15 p.m., Wednesday, June 10, 1987.
It being 10.16 p.m. pursuant to order made Monday, June 8, 1987, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 10, 1987

[Stage Direction]
Prayers