1. Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Department of Manpower and Immigration merger advocated in Bill C-27, now before the House, taking place and, if so, on what date will it be completed?

2. Has the temporary staffing policy during the merger of UIC and the Department been applied since March 15, 1977, before the third reading of the Bill and, if so, for what reason?

Order Paper Questions

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

1. (a) No. However, the personnel groups in the national headquarters of the commission and the department are being consolidated in order to facilitate the preparation of the plans to integrate the two organizations, (b) Not applicable.

2. (a) Yes. (b) The staffing policy adopted by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration on March 15, 1977, establishes a common staffing policy for the commission and department. It will help to ensure an orderly transition to the integrated organization provided for in Bill C-27.

Under the H-PEVAIC programme and in compliance with code D-15, have any persons drawing unemployment insurance lost their right to benefits, in accordance with clause 55(6) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and, if so, by region, how many and on what date?

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

Insofar as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned, yes.

Region 1976 October 1976 November 1976 DecemberAtlantic 287 323 314Quebec 3,190 1,870 2,962Ontario 2,137 2,133 1,980Prairie 740 635 527Pacific 618 656 750Total 6,972 5,617 6,533Atlantic 1977 January 278 1977 February 376 1977 March 193Quebec 2,092 2,986 -not available at this timeOntario 3,093 5,860 -not available at this timePrairie 981 893 927Pacific 627 827 880Total 7,071 10,942

1. How many students entered Department of Manpower and Immigration college preparatory programmes in the Ontario College of Applied Arts and Technology each year 1972 to date?

2. What was the average fee paid?

3. What was the average award to the students?

4. How many left before completing the programme?

5. How many found employment after graduation in the field for which they were trained?

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

Virtually all full-time training in Ontario is done through the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. The following data covers all full-time skill training, for Ontario. Trainee and cost figures (Nos. 1-4) are by fiscal year, 1972-73 to 1976-77; trainee follow-up data (No. 5) is by calendar year, 1972 to 1975. (1) The number of trainees who started training

August 4, 1977

Order Paper Questions

for each year is as follows: 1972-73: 16,864; 1973-74: 17,203;

1974- 75: 17,316; 1975-76: 20,337; 1976-77: 18,337 (Preliminary, as at March 31, 1977).

(2) The average Purchase Costs per Trainee were: 1972-73: $1,338 (Based on Estimated Purchase Costs); 1973-74: $1,194 (Based on Estimated Purchase Costs); 1974-75: $1,522 (Based on Estimated Purchase Costs); 1975-76: $1,477; 1976-77: $1,651 (Preliminary, as at March 31, 1977).

(3) The average Allowances paid per Trainee were: 1972-73: $1,220; 1973-74: $1,186; 1974-75: $1,216; 1975-76: $1,344; 1976-77: $1,550 (Preliminary, as at March 31, 1977).

(4) The number of Trainees who Discontinued training each year was: 1972-73: 4,997; 1973-74: 5,102; 1974-75: 5,475;

1975- 76: 6,301; 1976-77: 5,198 (Preliminary, as at March 31, 1977).

(5) This information is not directly available, since graduates are not required to seek subsequent employment through a Canada Manpower Centre. The information available is from a continuing 100 per cent survey of skill course graduates which shows:

Percentage of Skill Graduates Employed

Before Training After Training

1972 12.7 72.41973 14.1 73.01974 14.4 71.31975 12.7 65.51976 N/A N/A

The same survey shows that 74.8 per cent of those employed in 1975 are employed in a two-digit CCDO occupation which corresponds with the two-digit CCDO occupation assigned to their skill course. This is not a reliable indicator of whether persons are employed in the field for which they are trained because, for instance, a person trained in agricultural technology (agricultural occupation) may utilize his or her training as a sales representative for a feed company (sales occupation).

1. What have been the total amounts paid to date since January 1, 1977, to (a) newspapers (b) radio stations (c) television stations serving the constituencies of Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton West, Hamilton East, Hamilton-Mountain, Halton-Wentworth and Halton to promote the (i) Canada Works Programme (ii) Young Canada Works Programme and, in each case, what are the names and addresses of the involved media?

2. What has been the total amount allocated under the (a) Canada Works Programme (b) Young Canada Works Programme to the constituency of (i) Hamilton-Wentworth (ii) Hamilton West (iii) Hamilton East (iv) Hamilton- Mountain (v) Halton-Wentworth (vi) Halton?

3. In each case, on what basis was this distribution of funds made?

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

1. (a) (i) $5,487.00; (ii) $5,487.00; (b) Nil; (c) Nil. The following newspapers were used for both the Canada Works and the Young Canada Works programmes' advertising.

Acton Free Press, P.O. Box 120, Acton, Ontario; Burlington Gazette, 490 Brant Street, Burlington, Ontario; Caledonia Grand River Sachem, P.O. Box 160, Caledonia, Ontario; Grimsby Independent, P.O. Box 310, Grimsby, Ontario; Oakville Journal Record, 284 Lakeshore Blvd., E., Oakville, Ontario; Calvinist & Contact, 99 Niagara Street, St. Catharines, Ontario; Pioneer, 201 Paradise Road N., Hamilton, Ontario; Hamilton Spectator, 44 Frid Street, Hamilton, Ontario; Kanadski Srbobran, 335 Britania Avenue, Hamilton, Ontario.

2. (a) (i) $100,000; (ii) $296,000; (iii) $364,000; (iv) $100,000; (v) $100,000; (vi) $50,000; (b) (i) $59,000; (ii) $239,000; (iii) $140,000; (iv) $57,000; (v) $44,000; (vi) $44,000.

3. 1977/78 Canada Works program-Phase I: The 1977/78 Canada Works program-Phase I funds were distributed to the above constituencies as follows: Initial Allocation: (1) Estimates of labour force, labour surplus and a labour surplus rate were derived for each constituency for the period December, 1975 to November, 1976. (2) Based on these data $50,000 was allocated to those constituencies with a labour surplus rate below 5 per cent; therefore, Halton received $50,000. (3) A basic allocation of $100,000 was distributed to those constituencies with a labour surplus rate of 5 per cent to 7 per cent; therefore, Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton-Mountain and Halton-Wentworth each received $100,000. (4) Constituencies with a labour surplus rate over 7 per cent received a basic allocation of $100,000 and a per capita allocation based on their labour surplus in excess of 7 per cent of their labour force. All such constituencies received $187.33 for each person estimated in the excess labour surplus group. Thus, Hamilton West received a basic allocation of $100,000 and a per capita allocation of $83,000 on the basis of an excess labour surplus of 442. Hamilton East was granted a basic allocation of $100,000 and a per capita allocation of $112,000 on the basis of an excess labour suplus of 600. Supplementary Allocation: The supplementary funds were distributed in direct proportion to the per capita segment of the initial allocations. Thus, basic allocations were excluded from consideration in allocating the supplementary funds. On this basis, Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton-Mountain, Halton-Wentworth and Halton received no supplementary funds. The relevant data for the constituencies of Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton West, Hamilton East, Hamilton Mountain, Halton-Wentworth and Halton are:

1977/78 Canada Works Program-Phase I

Constituency Labour Surplus Rate Labour Force Labour Surplus Excess Labour SurplusHamilton-Wentworth 6.00 per cent (Average December 1975-November 1976) 49,398 2,964 Hamilton West 8.03 per cent 42,921 3,447 442Hamilton East 8.65 per cent 36,444 3,151 600Hamilton-Mountain 5.40 per cent 53,802 2,907 -Halton-Wentworth 5.06 per cent 65,888 3,331 -Halton 4.88 per cent 53,064 2,588 -

1977 Young Canada Works Program: The 1977 Young Canada Works funds were distributed to the above constituen-

August 4, 1977

cies as follows: Initial Allocation: (1) Estimates of labour force, labour surplus and labour surplus rates were derived for each constituency for the period May, 1976 to August 1976, for the 15-24 age group. (2) A basic allocation of $25,000 was made to those constituencies with a labour surplus rate of 10 per cent or less; therefore, Halton-Wentworth and Halton each received $25,000. (3) Constituencies with a labour surplus rate over 10 per cent received the basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation based on their labour surplus in excess of 10 per cent of their labour force. All such constituencies received $171.47 for each person estimated in the excess labour surplus group. Thus, (i) Hamilton-Wentworth was granted a basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation of $34,000 on the basis of an excess labour surplus of 198; (ii) Elamilton West was granted a basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation of $ 110,000 on the basis of an excess labour surplus of 643; (iii) Hamilton East was granted a basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation of $115,000 on the basis of an excess labour surplus of 668; and (iv) Hamilton-Mountain was granted a basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation of $7,000 based on an excess labour surplus of 42. Supplementary Allocations: The supplementary funds were distributed in direct proportion to the total funds distributed to a constituency in the initial allocation. The relevant data for the constituencies of Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton West, Hamilton East, Hamilton-Mountain, Halton-Wentworth and Halton are:

1977 Young Canada Works Program

Labour Surplus Labour Labour Excess LabourConstituency Rate Force Surplus Surplus (Average May, 1976-August 1976) Hamilton-Wentworth 11.41 per cent 14,049 1,603 198Hamilton West 15.27 per cent 12,207 1,864 643Hamilton East 16.45 per cent 10,365 1,705 668Hamilton-Mountain 10.28 per cent 15,302 1,572 42Halton-Wentworth Halton 9.65 per cent 8.76 per cent 18,303 14,752 1,766 1,292

1. Did Air Canada enter into a leasing agreement with the Government of Cuba, or its agent, for the leasing of commercial aircraft and, if so, on what date?

2. Is the agreement still in effect and, if so, are aircraft owned by Air Canada presently part of the Cuban air operations and, if so, how many and what types?

3. What is the term of the lease and is it renewable on the present date of termination?

4. Were any Air Canada employees involved in the Air Canada agreement with Cuba and, if so (a) how many (b) what are their names (c) what are their positions with Air Canada (d) what are their respective responsibilities in Cuba (e) how many such employees are presently in Cuba?

5. Were any of the aircraft leased lost in accidents and, if so (a) on what date (b) what type of aircraft (c) were any Canadian lives lost (d) was Air Canada compensated for the losses and, if so (i) on what date (ii) in what amount?

6. (a) For what reason was the leasing arrangement made (b) at whose request was it made (c) was the government consulted and did it give its consent and, if so, on what date (d) were any Cuban aircraft released from the Cuban commercial air operation and, if so (i) what type (ii) how many?

Order Paper Questions

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):

The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Yes. December 8, 1975.

2. Yes. One Air Canada DC-8-43 is leased to Cubana Airlines.

3. Two years. There is no renewable option under the lease agreement.

4. Yes. (a) One. (b) L. K. Rutledge, (c) Director, Flight Equipment Contracts, (d) None, (e) None.

5. Yes. Two aircraft, (a) March 16, 1976; October 6, 1976.

(b) DC-8-43, (c) No. (d) Yes. (i) For the first aircraft, May 20, 1976. For the second aircraft, the airline is awaiting payment presently, (ii) In each case, $1,000,000.

6. (a) Commercial considerations, (b) Cubana Airlines, (c) Yes. February 8, 1976. (d) No. (i) and (ii) Not applicable.

1. In the years 1972 to 1976, what was the total cost of the Occupational Training of Adults (OTA) Programme and how was such cost divided between (a) instructor's salaries (b) rental or leasing of teaching facilities and materials

(c) training allowances (d) transportation allowances (e) administrative (f) other costs?

2. In each year 1972 to 1976, how many persons in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic Provinces (c) Quebec (d) Ontario (e) the Western Provinces (f) Yukon (g) NWT (h) the Constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth (i) registered (ii) completed courses provided under the OTA Programme?

3. Of those completing the Programme, how many found course-related employment through the Department of Manpower and Immigration's job placement services?

4. Are those who complete the Programme given priority over others by Manpower for employment opportunities?

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

Under the Adult Occupational Training Act, there are two programs: the Canada Manpower Training Program (CMTP) and the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program (CMITP). Data on CMTP and CMITP costs and trainees (parts 1. and 2. of the question) is available only by fiscal year. Data on follow-up of trainees (part 3.) is available, by calendar year 1972 to 1975, for CMTP only.

1. The total cost of CMTP and CMITP for the years 1972-73 to 1975-76 was $1,654,118,331. The cost was divided as follows: (a) and (b) $902,117,203 (a. and b. split not available), (c) $601,664,202 (CMTP only-no allowances in CMITP); (d) $13,717,223 (Trainee Travel and Commuting Allowances), (e) $42,215,260 (Provincial Administration)*, (f) $94,404,443 (Other). * 2 3

*In some provinces provincial administration costs are included in the purchase price of the training.

2. See list below.

3. This information is not directly available, since graduates are not required to seek subsequent employment through a Canada Manpower Centre. The information available is from

August 4, 1977

Order Paper Questions

a continuing 100 per cent survey of skill course graduates which shows:

Percentage of Skill Graduates Employed

Before Training After Training

1972 38.0 76.01973 37.4 76.51974 40.4 75.91975 31.0 69.11976 N/A N/A

The same survey shows that 76.3 per cent of those employed in 1975 are employed in a two-digit CCDO occupation which corresponds with the two-digit CCDO occupation assigned to their skill course. This is not a reliable indicator of whether persons are employed in the field for which they are trained because, for instance, a person trained in agricultural technology (agricultural occupation) may utilize his or her training as a sales representative for a feed company (sales occupation).

4. No.

Canada Manpower Training Program and Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program Trainees Started, Contracted and Completed

1972-73 TO 197*1-76

Hamilton-

CMTP Trainees Started Canada Atlantic Provinces Quebec Ontario Western Provinces Yukon Northwest Territories Wentworth Constituency1972-73 260,945 31,274 129,270 46,548 52,925 454 474 2,7221973-74 267,684 31.273 129,333 45,986 59,791 771 530 2,6641974-75 233,181 29,148 99,548 46,199 57,406 442 438 2,4721975-76 213,216 31,928 73,569 53,098 53,507 421 693 2,868Completed 1972-73 229,160 26,153 116,829 37,904 47,612 363 299 2,2481973-74 220,601 21,513 116,819 31,643 49,782 521 323 1,8411974-75 201,808 23,629 90,131 36,000 51,428 301 319 1,9711975-76 CMITP Trainees 190,448 26,552 68,776 45,136 49,230 309 445 2,307Contracted 1972-73 103,283 14,390 31,699 30,481 26,190* 111 412 1,4741973-74 63,955 21,540 14,213 17,500 10,309 190 203 3461974-75 71,965 10,355 20,559 23,402 16,432 978 239 8271975-76 Completed2 63,890 13,134 15,825 18,576 15,336 644 375 5211975-76 38,856 9,215 8,546 10,774 9,792 270 259 N/A

1 Includes Training-in-lndustry for the Yukon.

2 Only available for 1975-76.

As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making, or interpretation of policies, regulating highway, air and rail safety?

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):

Transport Canada advises as follows: Highway Safety: (a) None, as the Highway Safety Branch was not established until after 1968. (b) Six. Air Safety: (a) 324; (b) 419. With respect to the transportation of dangerous goods for all modes of transport, the answers are: (a) 2; (b) 5. The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Railway Transport Committee: (a) As of December 31, 1968; seven commissioners (including chairman) and four others; (b) As of December 31, 1976; nine commissioners (including chairman) and nine others.

1. At the employer-union meeting which was held on December 8, 1976 and in which six UIC managers in Quebec participated with Mr. Pierre Gadbois, Director, heading their group, and five regional union officers led by Mr. Robert Goyette, Regional President, did the five managers accompanying Mr. Gadbois admit that they had not read the document entitled Cadre des rencontres patronales-syndicates submitted by the union on May 26, 1976, and did they refuse to have it inserted in the minutes of the meeting?

2. Was the only item on the agenda of the meeting the document mentioned in Part 1?

3. Did Mr. Gadbois in regard to invitations for consultation extended by the union on May 26, August 30, October 17, 1976, consider the document submitted by the union as an obstacle to the meetings?

4. On December 8, 1976, upon reading the document, did Mr. Gadbois indicate he agreed almost completely with the union paper, except for a matter of little importance?

August 4, 1977

5. Did Mr. Michel Fortin, Chief of the UIC Labour Relations in Quebec, admit to Mr. Robert Goyette, the Quebec President of the Union, that the management refused to study the paper because they thought the union was demanding co-management?

6. Was Mr. Goyette dismissed under these circumstances, even though it was not in keeping with the reasons put forward by management?

7. Since December 8, 1976, has the union invited management to employer-union meetings on particular dates and, has management refused to take part in such meetings?

8. Is the prevailing atmosphere in employer-union relationships in the UIC in Quebec favourable to changes such as the merger proposed in Bill C-27 now before the House and, if so, what are the future intentions of the government?

Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

1. No.

2. No.

3. No.

4. Mr. Gadbois indicated he agreed with most of the principles and general objectives in the paper, but expressed serious reservations regarding important details of implementation.

5. No.

6. No.

7. Yes, twice. Management agreed to these meetings but, since the dates suggested were not convenient, proposed alternate dates.

8. Yes, to ensure good communication with all employees and with union authorities by all available means.

1. On October 8, 1976, was a letter by Mr. Michel Fortin, Regional Director of Staff Relations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Quebec, addressed to the Quebec president of the union of employees of the UIC (ESENA-PSAC-QFL), apologizing for the fact that he had been escorted by security guards when, having been suspended for his union activities by the Department, he was on his way to defend grievances at 1441 St-Urbain Street in Montreal?

2. On February 23, 1977 or thereabouts, although Mr. Goyette had been dismissed, but was still President of the Union under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the constitution of the PSAC, was he again escorted by security guards acting on orders given by Mr. Fortin, on his way to the same place to defend grievances?

3. On September 29, 1976, at the time of Mr. Goyette's suspension for union activities, did Mr. Claude Rouleau, a Staff Relations agent, acting under orders of Mr. Fortin, try to convince local agents and members of the union who had submitted grievances to take their case out of Mr. Goyette's hands?

4. In spite of the letter of apology sent by Mr. Fortin on October 8, 1976, did Mr. Rouleau try again to convince agents and members of the union to take their case out of Mr. Goyette's hands, with such insistence that the Quebec local of the union complained of intimidation and harrassment, particularly during a press conference with the QFL?

Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

1. Yes; however, the president of the UIC employees' union had not been suspended for union activities, but for other reasons.

2. Yes.

3. No. It should, however, he pointed out that Mr. Goyette was not suspended "for union activities".

4. Not applicable.

Order Paper Questions

1. Since March 1976, at UIC, Quebec area, has section B5, indicating job designation date in most of TBCT 360-15 (REV. 1.76) 7540-21-870-7234 forms commonly referred to as OALO and used to describe the linguistic situation of a job in the Public Service been filled and, if not, does the UIC infringe the Official Languages Act which states that the designation date of a job has to be known when the job is identified as bilingual?

2. Does this practice allow the Commission to delay the designation of jobs whose unilingual incumbent should receive language training, to have more bilingual jobs than the authorities intend to designate and to reject illegally any dispute with respect to bilingualism allowance and, if so, who is responsible for this situation?

3. Since the appointment of an Official Languages Officer at the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Quebec area (a) who filled the job on (i) an interim basis (ii) a permanent basis (b) in each case, for what period, indicating the interim period or other and the permanent period (c) was anyone appointed to that job without competition (d) what became of each ex-employee?

Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. (a) (i) Mr. Hugues Desmarais, Mr. Guy Lemay, Mr. Jacques Therrien; (ii) Mr. Jacques Migneault, Mr. Hugues Desmarais, Mr. Jacques Therrien. (b) Mr. Jacques Migneault from August 13, 1973 to February 23, 1975, permanent. Mr. Hugues Desmarais from February 24, 1975 to February 25, 1976, interim from February 26, 1976 to May 16, 1976, permanent. Mr. Guy Lemay from May 17, 1976 to August 15, 1976 interim. Mr. Jacques Therrien from August 16, 1976 to March 23, 1977, interim, from March 24, 1977 to the present, permanent, (c) No, except for the periods of interim appointment or remuneration, (d) Mr. Jacques Migneault is now acting manager, Rouyn. Mr. Hugues Desmarais is now PM-4, integration branch. Mr. Guy Lemay has returned to his original duties at the Official Languages Branch (AS-2).