1979-11-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, given the refusal of the Conservative members yesterday to allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to be questioned in committee on his proposals for illegal police activity, and in order to allow opposition members the full opportunity of questioning the Prime Minister on the subject, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan):
That this House request the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions outlining his proposals for allowing ministerial approval for illegal acts by the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that the most modern aluminum casting plant in the world is under construction in the Saguenay district, and that our region has a very high unemployment rate in spite of the presence of highly skilled workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais):
That the House urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to pursue the study already under way on the feasibility of processing the metal here in Canada so as to create additional jobs and put the finished product directly on to world markets.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of this motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR REPORTS OF TASK FORCES ON QUEBEC-OTTAWA RELATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations refuses to make public ten studies on Ottawa-Quebec relations from 1967 to 1977, and that freedom of information is of utmost importance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the House urge the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations to make public the ten studies on Ottawa-Quebec relations from 1967 to 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Rod  Biaker@Lachine: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's rejection of the motion just put forward by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the confusion created in this country and in the House by the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) on interrelated subjects of police power in Canada, the ministerial responsibilities of the Solicitor

November 16, 1979
General (Mr. Lawrence) and the rule of law, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That this House express to the government its strong concern that any legislation relating to police powers in Canada meet the constitutional requirements of the rule of law in our society.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter can be debated at this time and in this way only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSAL THAT ROYAL COMMISSION TAKE INVENTORY OF RESERVES AND NEEDS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. One of the most serious challenges of the 1980s is that we are not self-sufficient in crude oil which is becoming a fast depleting asset in spite of accelerated exploration and development. Therefore, Canada will and must become more dependent on other sources of energy, namely, natural gas, coal, electricity, nuclear energy, etc. Therefore, I move:
That in view of the fact that the National Energy Board is more of a regulatory body and has not the staff for assessing the inventory of reserves of Canada's energy, a royal commission be set up for the purpose of taking an inventory in Canada of all the potential and proven reserves of all types of energy, and at the same time estimate Canada's energy needs for the foreseeable future, as the costs of such a process would be small in relation to the revenue derived by governments and the savings to the consumer on prohibitively priced energy.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be debated at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the failure of the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) to assure this House yesterday that he would stop budget cuts which are resulting in deteriorating service to our hospitalized war veter-

ans, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker):
That the Minister of Veterans Affairs be requested to report to this House without delay the measures he intends to take to stem any further deterioration in hospital service to our war veterans; to assure all employees in hospitals under the administration of his department that none of them will suffer salary cuts when the bilingualism bonus is terminated; and that no war veterans in hospital will be deprived of care and treatment in his or her own official language.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the requirements of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent must be given before such a motion can be introduced for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the persistent lack of access of members of this House to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, both in his role in that department and in his role as minister responsible for the northern pipeline, and in view of the continued affront to democratic principles, clarity of government policy and ministerial accountability which his appointment presents to this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House calls upon the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to resign his cabinet post and senatorial appointment immediately and present himself as a candidate for election to this House at the earliest opportunity, and calls upon the Prime Minister to appoint the minister of industry, trade and commerce and the minister responsible for the northern pipeline from the ranks of the membership of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented and debated at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This is brought about by the failure of the potash industry to meet world demand for potash at a period when we have huge deposits, world demand requires the development of one new mine a year, and a trade deficit
November 16, 1979

approximating $7 billion, resulting in high interest rates. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the House immediately debate the effect of the Saskatchewan government takeover of the potash industry which has resulted in inefficiencies in market predictions and the obvious inability or unwillingness to raise the venture capital necessary to get new mines into production, as a direct consequence of that take-over.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be introduced at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the drastic cuts decreed by the Progressive Conservative government have led to job losses and, therefore, lost services at the Post Office Department; considering that the removal of those services has seriously affected the Canadian people who are entitled to efficient postal services; and considering that alterations in postal services are made arbitrarily and without consultation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Lamontagne):
That the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) immediately restore the policy of the previous Liberal government which, on one hand, was meant to improve rather than worsen services and, on the other hand, compelled the departmental officials to consult before ordering reduction and even removal of services.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the meeting which was held between the Prime Minister and Premier Lougheed in Saskatoon on Monday, I understand. Could the Prime Minister inform us if it is true that Premier Lougheed was pressing for a $5 a year increase in the price of a barrel of oil in 1981 and 1982, and could the Prime Minister tell us that those prices are absolutely unacceptable to him, to the House and to the country?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the former prime minister will understand that it would not be helpful to negotiations to discuss the content of private discussions, but I can assure him- although I do not think he needs assurance-that he should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not, Mr. Speaker, but I thought one could believe what the Prime Minister said at the opening meeting of the first ministers in Ottawa. There he indicated to the premiers that the initial preference of the federal government was an annual increase of $6 a barrel. I do not know if that also appeared in the newspapers, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that $6 is even worse than the $5 that Premier Lougheed is reputed to be asking for.
Could the Prime Minister tell us that these figures are unacceptable and he would be looking for some increase of the type that our government brought in with the agreement of producing provinces-a couple of dollars a year? This was sufficient then for Alberta and it was sufficient for Saskatchewan, and the cost of living has not increased in speed since then. Why is this kind of agreement not reached now, Mr. Speaker?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 can confirm, as I said at the first ministers' conference, that we have scaled-down our original proposal from increases of $3 every six months after 1980 as a result of representations made by other provinces, particularly the province of Ontario. That remains the position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Prime Minister is telling us he scaled it down from $6 a year. Why was it at $6 a year in the first place? We know that Syncrude, for instance, has told us that to produce a barrel of synthetic oil will cost in the range of between $15 and $20 a barrel. Why would it have to go up $6 a year? Why is it not sufficient to have a price which will permit-as the Prime Minister told me on Tuesday-him to follow his policy of permitting Canada to be self-sufficient? If the producing companies in Syncrude can get a barrel of oil out at $15, why would the price have to go up to $20, $25 or $30?

November 16, 1979
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, our goal is to seek an agreement if possible, and to act without agreement if necessary, on a price that will move Canada toward self-sufficiency. The former prime minister will remember from his negotiations that the goal that was struck at that time had to do, not with the rate of increase in terms of dollars but with the rate of increase in relation to the world price.
He will know now that as a result of changes intervening since the agreement which he signed, the price has fallen to something like 62 per cent of the Chicago price, when his goal at the time he was negotiating matters was to bring the Canadian price much closer to the Chicago price.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Our policy was never to go up to world prices, regardless of what they would be. Our policy was to have a replacement price, and that is stated in Mr. Gillespie's paper of 1976. Why has the Prime Minister departed from that policy? On Tuesday, again, he was saying it is sufficient that we have a price which will bring on production. If the Middle East decides that the price is $100 a barrel, why do we need that price in Canada to bring on production in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition the other day in the House, our goal is not the world price, it is not the Chicago price, but it is a price that allows Canada to achieve conservation, to achieve substitution and to achieve the bringing on of new supplies. I can quite understand the difficulties faced by the Leader of the Opposition, because his position seems to be diametrically opposite to what is stated by the energy spokesman for the official opposition.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. He has been quoted as saying that the $2 a barrel annual increase formula is giving oil companies more than they need for exploration and development.
I want to ask him, therefore, if the government will not now withdraw its plans to increase oil prices rapidly to record world levels and, instead, produce a budget that will deal with the need to help our industries to be more effective, productive and efficient and to help lower-income Canadians to deal with the double shock to our economy due to the Conservative government's policies of high interest rates and record increases in energy prices.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the hon. gentleman was not here last night, because he would now understand that there is no high interest

rate policy. There is a high interest rate condition left by the hon. gentleman's government.


Mr. Whelan:: If you had been here you would have heard a lot of nonsense.


John Carnell Crosbie: My statement was that it is the calculation of our experts that if a price increase was put into effect, not just a $2 a year increase but in excess of that-another $2 or $2.50 a year-those additional revenues would not be needed by the oil and gas industry for energy investment in Canada; they would have sufficient cash flow to make all necessary energy investments. Therefore, we suggested an energy self-sufficiency levy or tax so that the Government of Canada would have some revenue to do the things necessary for the people of Canada, particularly in the energy field.
We also proposed that all the proceeds of that tax be spent on energy-related matters. If by chance it turned out that there was not a sufficient cash flow for the industry, then adjustments would be made, particularly with reference to independent, Canadian-owned firms in the oil and gas industry which we intend to support and favour.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there is cold comfort in the minister's words for Canadian consumers and small businesses. Speaking of experts, the minister was telling us the other day that other experts now say that our trade figures are $500 million better than he thought. That being the case, does he not realize that this undermines his argument and that of his government that new information about the balance of payments deficit prevented his government from implementing its election pledge to bring interest rates down? Surely the minister must recognize that that pledge must be implemented since that argument has been undermined?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that was really not a question. Despite the fact that an oil company did not report as it apparently should have to Statistics Canada, Customs or whomsoever, that it sold about $500 million this year outside of Canada, which boosts their export earnings by that much- which is welcome news in the sense that it improves our current account deficit for this year-our estimate of what the deficit will be, as a result of the economic conditions left to us by the hon. gentlemen opposite, is that it will still be at least $7 billion. Therefore, this $500 million error has no connection in the world with interest rates-none whatsoever. Why the hon. gentleman keeps harping on this matter is beyond me.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that figures recorded in Hansard on November 7, in response to order paper questions of mine, show that more than 54 per
November 16, 1979

cent of all Canadians 65 years of age and over have so little other income that they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement-which means that they are at the poverty line- and in view of the fact that the cost of living increase, which now stands at 9.3 per cent over a year ago, hits very hard at old age pensioners and at others on fixed incomes, will the Prime Minister tell the House what we can do to get the government to take immediate action to assist these people in their struggle with the rising cost of living?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that members of this House can do to be helpful. I want this House to know that the whole question of the field of pensions is under review. We would welcome suggestions from all members of the House on changes in pension arrangements that would allow us to be more helpful to Canadians in need.
Second, the House could help the government and help the people of the country by understanding that if we are to get the economy in a position where we are able to bring down costs and inflation, we will have to endure, for at least a period of time, a condition relating to high interest rates and relating to costs that none of us welcomes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many of the people on whose behalf I am speaking will not endure long enough to gain from any improvements the government may make down the line-which means that what we are concerned about is immediate action-will the Prime Minister reconsider the negative answers he has given to our requests for a milk subsidy, a bread subsidy, a fair prices commission with power to roll back unjustified cost increases, a cost of living tax credit or doing something about high interest rates?
Will he take action, now, on one or more of these issues so that the people he is asking to endure will have a chance to live while they are still on this earth?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the specific proposals put forward by the hon. member and his party for some time, I have indicated before that we are not prepared to move on those specific proposals. That remains the case. In some cases we think they would be simply bureaucratic and not effective, while in other cases they are measures which we simply think the country cannot afford at this time.
In relation to inflation, which is the critical and basic problem, it is our view that the only way we can get a handle on inflation and begin to move it down generally, consequently bringing the most relief to the people who are most victimized by it, is to endure, now, some of the high interest rates and other economic problems that have to be faced in the shortterm if we are to have long-term solutions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best to keep my cool as the Prime Minister keeps asking the people I am talking about to endure these conditions. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has said "No" to all of our
Oral Questions
suggestions and has made some others that are futuristic, may I ask what one thing this government has done in the 5 Vi months it has been in office to help pensioners and those on fixed incomes to cope with the rising cost of living? Just one.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can refer, of course, to the action we have taken with the help of the hon. member in relation to the spouse's allowance, which was the first bill this government introduced. I can indicate that this government has taken the clear decision that, instead of ducking a difficult problem, we are going to face head-on the problems of inflation and high interest rates with an eye to bringing some relief there.
I can repeat to the hon. member the very firm undertaking I have given that when there is an increase in energy prices we will be looking at and introducing measures that will help those Canadians, including the elderly and those on low incomes who are most hard hit by energy increases, to deal with the special problems any increase will cause them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF STUDY ON FEDERALISM
Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Early in 1977 the former government ordered a study on federalism which apparently has gone on for about 16 months. According to our information, 112 departments or government agencies took part in this assessment; also, based on our information, there were 485 occurrences of federal intervention into Quebec's jurisdiction. In light of the publication of an interim report which amounted to a harsh criticism of Ottawa's attitude toward Quebec, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could assure the House that he will table the ten known studies as soon as possible?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there were not ten studies. There were, I believe, ten chapters of the same study. I think the minister answered the request of a reporter for the publication of a summary of that study and did not indicate the officials or departments involved. I am informed that the study touched upon the question of the nature of relations between federal civil servants and those of the province of Quebec. I am informed also that there was a commitment by the former government not to publish this study which contained evidence given by specific officials. We believe we must honour the commitment given by the former government.

November 16, 1979
Oral Questions


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question. Whether ten chapters or ten studies, it does not change anything in the basic question. Since the information we have shows this study is an indictment against the ten years of the former government from 1967 to 1977 when in fact there have been three different administrations in Quebec-the Union Nationale government, a Liberal government that had two mandates, and a Parti Quebecois government, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman how he can reconcile the answer he just gave me with what his government intends to do with the freedom of information bill?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, a commitment has been made to the effect that the details of the evidence given by federal civil servants for that study would not be released. This is a commitment we must honour.


PRICE OF OIL-GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the more the Prime Minister speaks about energy policy, the more confused the Canadian public becomes.


An hon. Member:: You are more confused.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why don't you go dancing?


Marc Lalonde: He said this morning that the policy was to go toward self-sufficiency. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government's policy is still to achieve self-sufficiency by 1990. Secondly, he said that his target was not the Chicago price or the international price.
Will he confirm at least that the price is going to be what he said in his opening statement at the conference, that his preference has been brought down from a $6 annual increase in the price of a barrel of oil to bring us quickly to 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the Chicago price which, as the Prime Minister knows, may very well be higher and is actually higher than the international price?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can reaffirm that it is the intention of this government to move Canada to energy self-sufficiency by 1990. We believe that can be accomplished by moving toward, but not to, the Chicago or the international price. The proposal we put forward, which the hon. member has accurately read, is 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the Chicago price. There has not been a final decision taken as to whether it would be 90 per cent or 95 per cent. The hon. member will understand that among the factors to be taken into account in relation to that figure would be the implication of the Syncrude levy.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Prime Minister is still not clarifying whether it is going to be 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the Chicago price or the international price. In his answer he said that it would be either the Chicago price or the international price.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He didn't.


Marc Lalonde: There is a difference between the two. As a supplementary, the Prime Minister, in the statement he tabled in the House and the statement he made at the federal-provincial conference, talked about the self-sufficiency tax. He said at the conference that the government intended to collect 50 per cent of the revenues in excess of $2 a barrel a year. In the House that evening he said that he was thinking of 50 per cent of the profits. Ever since then he has talked one day of the tax on profits and on another day of a tax on revenue.
Can he tell the House whether he has made up his mind as to what he has in mind? Is it a tax on profits, or a tax on gross revenues? He knows very well that a tax on gross revenues is objected to strenuously by the Premier of Alberta, and on the other hand a tax on profits is likely to bring little or no revenue to the federal government. At least he should know which is which.


An hon. Member:: Does he know the difference?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, both options are open. The hon. member, who is becoming more informed daily on energy matters-although he continues to be in disagreement with his leader as to the practice of the government of which they were both members-will know that it is important, in relation to whatever tax we bring in, that it be as acceptable as possible to the producing provinces, because if it is not acceptable they have the opportunity to move within their own field of jurisdiction in a way which would create great uncertainty and confusion in the industry, to the detriment of Canadian supply and to the detriment of revenues received by both levels of government.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, today's Statistics Canada report that beef prices were up 1.1 per cent last month, and 24.7 per cent over the year, is only the tip of the iceberg in so far as the impact on retail beef prices that consumers will suffer from over the coming months as a result of increased interest rates. I would, therefore, like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Whenever beef prices go up and consumers try to protect themselves by buying other meats, they find the increased demand drives their second and third choices up through the
November 16, 1979

ceiling also. Can consumers really stand to be major losers as a result of the government's high interest policy? Will the minister say what measures he is prepared to recommend to his inner cabinet colleagues to reduce the impact of the high interest rate policy on consumers, particularly on low income consumers?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated as recently as a few moments ago, there will be certain measures presented to the House very shortly.


CABINET DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING FLUOROCARBONS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the minister's responses at committee this morning to questions about fluorocarbons made it clear that he has not been talking to the Minister of the Environment recently. Could I ask the minister to assure the House, since he is not in the inner cabinet and may not be privy to decisions on high interest rates, that he is discussing the matter with the Minister of Finance?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, certainly this is a matter of common discussion right through the government, certainly at cabinet committees as well as, I understand, at inner cabinet.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the importance of trade figures in determining the government's economic policy and in determining the level of revenues that rightfully should be forthcoming to the treasury of Canada, could the minister please tell me what steps are being taken to improve the reporting procedures so as to avoid a recurrence of the Irving situation that we heard about yesterday?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the department has been aware of difficulties in this area for some time. In September of this year we entered into discussions with Statistics Canada and other agencies within the government to improve this process.
With respect to the specific matter which the hon. gentleman raises, there is an investigation ongoing within the department; I want to assure him of that. When that investigation is completed, I will be reporting to the hon. member and to the House.
Oral Questions AUDIT OF OIL COMPANIES


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he intends to conduct an audit, or whether he is in fact in the process of conducting an audit of the oil companies in this country, having regard to the type of reporting practices used for exports, as well as the reporting practices in connection with their profit levels?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue is always in a position in this House where he cannot indicate what specific steps are being taken with respect to any taxpayer in Canada. However, I can assure the hon. member, as Minister of National Revenue, that the department is doing its duty to the people of Canada with respect to the matters he raised.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Edward Broadhent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the Minister of Transport indicated that the government has broken yet another of its election promises, this time to the farmers of western Canada. I would like to get the matter clarified because it is of great importance.
The minister said, with reference to the Crow rate, "The benefits of the statutory freight rates will remain for western producers". He was saying that, and that alone, was the policy of the Conservative party. During the election campaign, in a publication put out by the national headquarters of the Conservative party on April 19, there was no such qualification. It says, "The Crowsnest Pass freight rate be maintained"-not the benefits; not qualified, period!
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, what is the policy of the government? Do that they stand by their election promise that was made in April, and repeated in The Western Producer a few days later, or are they now accepting the position taken by the Minister of Transport?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the interest of the hon. member for Oshawa in the Crow rates question. It is naturally one that has been a preoccupation of the Minister of Transport and myself- coming from where we do-for a long time. There is no contradiction-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are cries of "Shame" that we come from western Canada. We feel no shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 16, 1979
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no contradiction between the position as read into the record by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the position stated by the Minister of Transport.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the Prime Minister does not usually stoop to such low politics as he just did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: He suggested there were cries of "Shame" coming from this side of the House because he said he was a western Canadian. He knows that is not the case, and I hope he makes it clear. The suggestion of shame that came from this side of the House was because of the implication that the Prime Minister alone knew something about agricultural policy.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 would like to ask him because he did not clarify the record, and his party committed itself to maintaining the Crow rate, with no qualification at all, and the minister in the House yesterday denied that-


Mr. Mazankowski:: I did not.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 ask the Prime Minister, will he say unequivocally that the Conservative Government of Canada plans to maintain, without qualification, the Crow rate for western Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why members of the opposition cry "Shame" as often as they do. If 1 misinterpreted their motive, naturally I will withdraw that misinterpretation.


An hon. Member:: Apologize.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will apologize if, in fact, I misinterpreted their motive. The position of the Progressive Conservative government as stated before the election campaign and as stated yesterday in the House of Commons is to ensure that the farmers and producers in western Canada will continue to enjoy the benefits of the Crow rate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Will he inform the House whether the inquiry has been set up to look into the serious flooding of Lake Nipissing? Is this inquiry under way and now starting its work?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can answer yes to both those questions. I can assure the hon. member there will be full public hearings and full public input.


NEED FOR CREATION OF FEDERAL ENERGY BANK
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell us what is the rationale of his proposal to set up a powerful government institution, namely the federal energy bank, while at the same time he is making every effort to dismantle PetroCan? What are his reasons for making such a change?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question put by the hon. member is in two parts: the first has to do with PetroCan and the government proposal to transform it into a company owned by Canadians rather than state-controlled.
The second refers to the setting up of an energy bank. We feel it is essential for us to have an agency able to provide Canadian investors with the necessary front-end financing to promote the development of energy projects before the private sector is ready to consider such investment.


REASON PRIME MINISTER REJECTS PRINCIPLE OF PETRO-CANADA
Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. 1 wonder, Mr. Speaker, who the Prime Minister represents if not the citizens of Canada, and why he is trying to invent a new mechanism to be put at the disposal of private enterprise which already has the advantage of tax privileges. If the Prime Minister feels uncomfortable as the sole shareholder of Petro-Canada, perhaps he could invite the provinces to participate in a minority capacity, but why is he averse to the idea of Petro-Canada, and does he wish to create a new bank that will give added advantages to the private sector?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not seeking the participation of the provinces, but that of Canadians, because I feel Canada can be a far stronger nation if every Canadian has a greater sense of participation in the building of its future.
November 16, 1979


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the urgent necessity of accelerating negotiations with the United States government regarding acid precipitation, and in view of the minister's recent meetings in Geneva with his U.S. counterpart, can he inform the House whether the deadline or timetable has been accelerated and when an agreement between the U.S. and Canada on acid precipitation can be signed?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 am unable to give the hon. member and the House the exact date. I can report to the House that as a result of my meetings with the hon. Douglas Costle, chief of the U.S. environmental protection agency, in Geneva a few days ago our American friends have agreed to meet with me in December to consider how the program of negotiation can be accelerated. That is a matter of some importance to all members of this House.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to proceed on December 1 of this year with enforcement of the regulations proclaimed by the previous government on the control of fluorocarbons, now that objections have been withdrawn? Also, when does he intend to proceed with enforcement of regulations on PCBs now that objections on that matter have been withdrawn?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. They are both important matters. With respect to fluorocarbons, we have had informal word that the objection will be withdrawn. It has not yet been formally withdrawn, but we anticipate that. If that happens, we think we can have the regulations by February, which is a delay of only a month or so.
With respect to PCBs, both objections have been withdrawn. The board will sit on December 10. If there are any submissions to be made by any interested parties, they will be heard. It is not anticipated that there will be a long hearing. I imagine the regulations could follow very shortly thereafter.


MANPOWER
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Oral Questions
Can the minister confirm a change to this House which, if it is a fact and in force, I feel should be a great source of concern to us over the choice of Canada Works programs? Is it true that, contrary to what has been done in the past where projects were chosen by the representative of the riding in conjunction with the minister's officials, now, for the first time, their recommendations are ignored and the advice is sought, instead, of Progressive Conservative candidates who lost their election?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the criteria for selection remain the same in phase four of Canada Works as in previous phases of Canada Works, and therefore are the same criteria of selection of the previous government.
I should say that I have had good co-operation from all hon. members who are entitled, in their constituencies, to Canada Works allocations. I have had good co-operation from local officials working for CEIC, and I hope that the announcements which have yet to come will reflect the co-operative input made by all persons.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy if the minister says it is exactly as it was in the past, where it took the concurrence of hon. members and the civil servants of the minister's department. In the case of my riding a joint recommendation was made to the minister over one month ago, and yet no decision has been taken. In the case of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine the joint recommendation of the member of Parliament and the civil servants has been quashed by the recommendations of the defeated candidate of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, as was the practice of the previous government, the decision is made by the minister, and that is the program requirement. Recommendations are taken from many persons, including hon. members opposite, including persons in the community and including project officers of the CEIC. The recommendations are made, and they are made on that basis.
I should tell the hon. member that some $4.5 million worth of projects has already been approved in the province of Quebec alone, and I give the hon. member my assurance that the process of approval will proceed expeditiously, quickly and, I hope, to his liking.
80079-IS

November 16, 1979
Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Considering that last August the government stated its acceptance of the recommendations of the Heald, Sinclair and Chouinard commission, and considering that on November 7 last the Association des Gens de Fair du Quebec sent him a letter pointing out that only four air controllers had been recruited in 1979 in Quebec; that recruiting practices and evaluation mechanisms were lacking, and that equipment is inadequate to train a sufficient number of controllers to carry out within a reasonable period the recommendations of the Heald, Sinclair and Chouinard commission, could the minister tell us if he can give immediate instructions to representatives of his department in Montreal in order that the recruiting practices be improved, the training and control mechanisms be more efficient and the delays in which the department has become entangled be shortened?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, an implementation team was established immediately upon receipt of the final report of the inquiry. The implementation team is headed by Mr. Maurice Pitre. 1 am advised that officials of the implementation team and my department met with les Gens de Fair in Quebec City on October 25. They advised them of the progress which was being made and about the potential with respect to the implementation.
My understanding is that I will be receiving a report from the implementation committee by November 25 or November 26, at which time action will follow. I am sure the hon. member appreciates the fact that there has to be close consultation with regard to the implementation plans with all the aviation associations, and that is what we are doing.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I will direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. For the second consecutive year, gill net fishermen in British Columbia feel threatened by the proposal which would limit them to one net per vessel.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has acknowledged that this proposal would mean the loss of up to 800 jobs, will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assure the House and the west coast

fishing industry that the proposed regulation will not be implemented in 1980?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister, I will take the hon. member's question as notice and discuss it with the minister. I am sure a response can be given on Monday.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and relates to the Canada Works program. The minister is no doubt aware of the fact the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has stopped repairing most small fishing docks in eastern Canada. He certainly knows, also, that several Canada Works projects are aimed at completing work left unfinished by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which supplies materials for Canada Works projects. My information is that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not allocated any funds for the supply of these materials. Can the minister tell us if he has met with his colleague in this regard, and if he was able to get funds to complete this work?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, 1 have had a meeting with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We have discussed this very subject. I can tell the hon. member that in so far as the Canada Works program is concerned, I have instructed my officials to give priority to those projects which appear to be in the area of the small craft harbours-type applications. They are important projects. We have had great success with that type of project in the past, and I am sure we will in the future.
In the meantime, I am advised that in so far as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is concerned with the provision of materials, that particular proposition is under review within the government and there should be an announcement fairly shortly.

[ Translation]


INCREASE IN OIL PRICES-LOW INCOME CANADIANS FINANCING EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. As the government is about to increase the price of oil, does the Prime Minister not think it is unfair to use the poorest of Canadians,
November 16, 1979

namely, those on welfare, pensioners and low income workers to finance oil-related research done by multinationals?
Right Eton. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if that were the objective of our policies, it would indeed be unfair. But what would really be unfair to Canadians, and especially to Quebeckers and people in the Atlantic provinces, would be to continue the present policy which leaves Quebec and the maritimes in a situation where political changes in a foreign country can disrupt oil supplies. That is something we are committed to change.


SUGGESTION THAT PROFITS OF MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG LOW INCOME CANADIANS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In order not to penalize the category of citizens who are not responsible for wasted energy and whose income varies from $60 to $125 a week, would the government agree to take the surplus profits of the multinationals, in keeping with the Prime Minister's decision, and distribute them to these citizens in the form of heating subsidies, and would it also authorize low wage earners to deduct from income tax their transportation costs to work?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I have said often in the House, we intend to help the poor, those who cannot absorb the oil price increases, and we now have some plans under review to that effect. If the hon. member has any specific propositions to submit to the Minister of Finance, I am sure it will be of great help.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Recognizing Canada's substantial international role in the distribution of both nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, and in view of the pessimistic report of the International Fuel Cycle Evaluation Conference regarding the potential proliferation through expanding numbers of nuclear power plants throughout the world, is it the minister's intention to take any initiatives among supplier nations moving toward more effective and stringent international safeguards, including control over the fuel cycle in the purchasing state, international atomic energy regional disposal centres, or the return of spent fuel to supplier nations?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to the INFCE study. That will not be made public and has not been
Oral Questions
made public to us as yet. My understanding is that it will be released in February by the countries which are studying it, and 1 would certainly want to take a very hard look. There have been preliminary reports that the substance of the report is somewhat discouraging, but I cannot comment on that because we have not been provided with the report as yet.
So far as taking any steps with regard to the export of nuclear technology is concerned, or with regard to bringing back to this country nuclear wastes which might be generated by reactors, this is one of the subjects which is the matter of reference to the special committee which is being set up to study nuclear development in this country and nuclear sales abroad. 1 would hope that all members will make a very serious contribution to the study and work of that committee as we determine what Canada's role will be in this regard in the future.


ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY TAX
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to the energy self-sufficiency tax. On Monday morning he said to the premiers that the tax would be on incremental revenues; on Monday night in this House he said it would be on the excess profits; out west, he reversed himself twice; and earlier this morning he said that both options are open.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that if the option to tax the profits of the oil companies is used, that would mean a loss of several hundred million dollars in revenue to the federal government, because the oil companies can reduce their profit picture by investing in non-related energy areas? In other words, when will the Prime Minister stand up for the people of Canada and stop kowtowing to the multinational oil companies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will stand up for the people of Canada right now, as I have done right throughout this debate, and recognize that what is in the long-term interest of the people of Canada is security of Canadian supply, rather than to pursue the policy advocated by the hon. member and, I gather, the official opposition which would continue the dependence of eastern Canada upon unstable foreign sources.
To come to the specific matter that the hon. member raises, we are looking at both options. There is no question that it would be easier for us to introduce a tax on revenues. There is also no question that an action of that kind would invite potential reaction from some provinces which would add uncertainty and confusion to the energy situation in the country and might jeopardize the stimulation of future supply. It is also within the ingenuity of this government to find ways in which taxes based upon profit will achieve a satisfactory yield.

November 16, 1979
Privilege-Mr. R. Ritchie


Reginald Cyril Symes: In other words, what the Prime Minister is saying is that he has capitulated to Mr. Lougheed, the Premier of Alberta, and to the multinational oil companies. Will he answer the first part of my question, whether he would not admit that the option of a tax on profits means a loss of several hundred million dollars of potential revenue which he needs to promote energy self-sufficiency?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have capitulated neither to Mr. Lougheed nor to Mr. Blakeney, nor to the hon. member, nor- since there is someone speaking from their party over there- to the multinationals. What we are seeking is an effective energy package based upon as broad an agreement as possible, because that is the best guarantee of moving the country as quickly as possible toward energy self-sufficiency.
There is no question, as I said in response to the hon. member's initial question, that it would be easier for the Government of Canada if the tax could be levied upon revenues. There are some complications there. I do not expect the hon. member to give much credit for complexity, but there are some complications there. We are trying to work our way through them, and we expect to realize an agreement or a policy which will move the country toward self-sufficiency by 1990.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ron Ritchie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), in the course of proposing a motion under Standing Order 43, used some language which was open to the interpretation that I as a member of the governing party might also be a member of a team of Imperial Oil persons promoting the interests of that company in government policy. This was the most recent of a number of statements and comments emanating from the other side that could be open to a somewhat similar interpretation.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Smear tactics.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: In light of those innuendoes, past, present and possibly future, I should like to put on the record certain relevant facts. The first is that for nearly twenty-six and a half years prior to January 14, 1974, I was an employee of Imperial Oil Limited. During the last 11 years of that period I was a member of its board of directors, and for several years a senior vice-president. On January 14, 1974, that relationship was terminated by my resignation to enter another field of what I consider to be the public service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respect the hon. member's desire to clarify the record with respect to his own position. In fact, yesterday the occasion to which he refers in his question of privilege was in the preamble to the motion by the hon.

member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) which reads in part:
Given the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ritchie) is a former vice-president of Imperial Oil;-
That was the only reference that was made to the hon. member and in no way is it unparliamentary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Not yet.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume it is factual, and while the hon. member may wish to take objection to any innuendoes that may be cast in that, I have to keep these interventions in line with the procedures and rules of the House, and I find that, in fact, nothing unparliamentary or unsavoury has been said about the hon. member. I would have to be very limited in any discretion I would exercise with him in his attempt to give some background for his reasons for entering into politics in relation to any denunciation. The only reference that was made was that he was formerly a vice-president of Imperial Oil.


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with that?


An hon. Member:: Come on, sit down.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully suggest that the effect of the total motion and of the comments made was to suggest that I was a member of a team in which the president of Imperial Oil should be included to advise this government. That is what I consider to be a question of privilege, and my purpose, which may not have been clear in what I said up to this moment, was to make it clear that I have absolutely no ties with Imperial Oil, and I was going to put forward the concrete facts that made that clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the House accepts the hon. member's word that, as he has just said, he has no ties with Imperial Oil and he does not form part of a team in that respect. However, I do not think that, in the circumstances, I can permit the hon. member to go any further than that. The intervention of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice yesterday was to seek the unanimous consent of the House for a debate on his motion preceded by a preamble. Obviously, unanimous consent was not forthcoming, which is an expression by the House that it would not entertain such a motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Nevertheless, I do have to refer to what was said. The statement was a very brief reference to the hon. member. He has now indicated that he has no connection with Imperial Oil, that he has severed that connection completely. I am sure the House accepts the statement of the hon. member entirely and it more than counterbalances any reference that was made about him yesterday. Further than that, I would have difficulty in letting the hon. member
November 16, 1979

go to any great lengths in establishing that. He has made his statement and I am sure the House accepts it fully.


MR. MILLER-ABSENCE OF ANSWER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question of privilege which arose during the question period at which time I directed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) in the absence of the minister. In response to that question, the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) intervened and took the question as notice. Previously, I had telephoned the minister's office to assure myself that someone would be able to answer my question. I was informed that the parliamentary secretary would be in the House today to answer for the minister. The question 1 asked was important. It was important to west coast fishermen and I had a supplementary to that question.
My question of privilege is that I would have liked to hear what the parliamentary secretary was prepared to answer, as I know he was aware of the question discussed in committee the other day.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a question of privilege. As I recall what happened in the course of events, the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser), acting for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath), took the hon. member's question as notice. Certainly he will receive the answer from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that perhaps his question, in his own terms, is directed to the parliamentary secretary of a particular minister, but in fact questions are directed to the ministry in general. It is not the obligation of anyone in the ministry to respond to any question. It is the option entirely of one of them or all of them whether to respond, who shall, in what manner and in what quality. I notice that both the parliamentary secretary and the acting minister rose to take the question, obviously without consultation between them. I am sure that whatever took place was entirely accidental in nature, but even if it were intentional, it could not be constituted as a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. David Kiigour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 280, 398 and 524.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the government studied the allegations that the United States Freedom of Information Act is being exploited by criminals and foreign agents, that it undermines national security and that many of the requests are frivolous?
2.	Will the government ensure that no private parties or corporations will have the right to file lawsuits blocking the release of information they provide to the government?


Walter David Baker: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Freedom of Information bill recently introduced by the government contains no provisions for or prohibitions against lawsuits by private parties or corporations blocking the release of information they provide to the government.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) How many persons have visited Fort Wellington in Prescott, Ontario, in each of the past four years (b) what is an estimate of how many were (i) Canadians (ii) Americans?
2.	What was the total (a) revenue of the Fort in each of the past four years (b) cost of operation?
3.	Will the government take additional steps to promote the Fort as a tourist attraction to encourage more visitors to the area which could be beneficial to the economy of the town of Prescott?


John Allen Fraser: 1. (a) 1975-76: 50,655
1976-	77: 42,090
1977-	78: 49, 578
1978-	79: 53,090
April 1, 1979-Sept. 30, 1979: 56,224
Total	Estimated	EstimatedAttendance	Canadians*	Americans*(b) 1979 (Apr. 1 to Sept. 30)	56,224	39,075	15,2361978-79	53,090	36,897	14,3871977-78	49,578	34,456	13,4351976-77	42,090	29,252	11,4061975-76	50,655	35,205	13,727
Information based on specific survey conducted in 1977.
2.	(a) Total revenue-Nil;
(b) Cost of operation:	1976-77	$ 93,3001977-	78	106,5001978-	79	180,1001979-	80	171,1003.	Yes
November 16, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mitges: 1.	What were the terms of reference given to the recently appointed commissioner to review members of Parliament and senators salaries and allowances?
2.	Is there a time limit for the commissioner to make his report and, if so, what is the time limit?
3.	What is the amount of money, salary or remuneration that will be paid to the commissioner?


Walter David Baker: 1.	Order in council of 9 August, 1979, P C. 1979-2167 (pursuant to subsection 34(7) of the Senate and House of Commons Act), states as schedule B:
"Terms of Reference:
The commissioner to Review Salaries of members of Parliament and senators shall:
(a)	report to the governor in council his recommendations on the adequacy of the annual variations of sessional allowances payable to the members of the Senate and House of Commons and other allowances payable to them, within six months of his appointment; and
(b)	subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, hire on contract those individuals necessary to advise and assist him on technical matters related to his inquiry."
2.	See 1. (a) above.
3.	Order in council of 9 August, 1979, P.C. 1979-2167, states as schedule A:
"The remuneration of Alfred Hales, Commissioner to review salaries of members of Parliament and senators, shall be $250 per diem plus reasonable travel and living expenses, effective August 9, 1979."


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to raise a point of order on my question numbered 384 on the order paper. It is a straightforward, relatively simple question which should not take a great deal of time to answer. I put that question on the order paper on October 15. It is directed to the minister responsible for CIDA who happens to be in the other place. After one month without having an answer to this question-


Walter David Baker: You should have been here last session.


Mr. Kempling:: It would take six months, a year or two years.
[Mr. Fraser.)


John Leslie Evans: The hon. minister indicates that I should have been here last session. The fact is that I am here now, they are the government, and I should like an answer to that question.


Walter David Baker: You will get one.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 14, consideration in committee of Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980-Mr. Stevens- Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West):: When the committee rose on Wednesday, November 14, 1979, schedule D of the bill was under consideration.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should now be able to answer the question 1 asked him Tuesday evening during the consideration of his department's estimates. So if we could take three or four minutes of the committee's time, I think the minister is now ready to reply to the question I put to him Tuesday evening.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Chairman, in fact I said that if it were possible and I received the consent of the House, I would be prepared to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle when I appeared in committee proceedings last Tuesday afternoon. If I have that consent, I am prepared to answer the question in committee, I hope to the satisfaction of the hon. member.


Thomas Lefebvre: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle enquired whether the government has a plan to ensure equality between new users of natural gas, who would benefit from the proposed incentive gas pricing scheme, and people outside of gas service areas who would have to continue using
November 16, 1979

oil or other fuels. I believe the hon. member had in mind particularly the situation of private consumers in rural areas.
First, let me explain it is the government's hope and intention, as a result of the incentive gas pricing scheme, that there will be a widespread expansion of gas service in Canada, not just in areas east of Montreal where the TransCanada Pipelines system now ends, but in areas where there is a transmission system but where gas distribution has not yet been made economic.
Second, 1 want to point out that gas incentive pricing is intended to provide the means to expand distribution systems and encourage conversion to gas, not to provide a price windfall to gas users. Gas consumers will continue to pay a price related to that crude oil. While they will enjoy some advantage over oil consumers, it will not be a large one. I would not want the hon. member to think that there will be a major problem of interpersonal or interregional equity in this case.
Finally, it is the government's hope that it will have the means to provide assistance to those who must continue to burn oil. What we have in mind here is at least one program to which I referred earlier, a program to modify oil furnaces by retrofitting furnaces with nozzle devices which in fact would cut consumption quite substantially, thereby increasing the conservation side of things, the cost of running an oil-generated furnace.
I hope my comments will provide some assurance to the hon. member that the government's energy planning does not overlook the situation of private consumers who, by force of circumstances, must continue to burn oil.


Thomas Lefebvre: 1 thank the hon. minister for making that reply and putting it on the record of this committee. I will await further developments with anxiety.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, 1 notice that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is in the chamber but not in his seat. I should like to direct a few comments to him.


An hon. Member:: Ele does not have to be in his seat.


David Orlikow: I know that. I am just alerting the minister, as he is sitting there talking, I am sure, about important matters with the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Fox:: Mr. Chairman, if we are to get into the examination of estimates, it is my understanding that the official opposition would be leading off with the examination of estimates and questions addressed to the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


An hon. Member:: Both members rose at the same time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise several matters with the minister. The first matter I want to raise with him is the matter of-
Supply


Francis Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Since the Chairman has not made a ruling on the matter, I rose in my seat at the same time and it is my understanding that according to the custom and procedure of the House it would be normal for the lead-off questioner to be a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. 1 would like to have the Chairman rule on that subject.


Fred Alward McCain: My interpretation is that the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle had interceded in the debate and, therefore, one would be at liberty to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


An hon. Member:: There was an agreement.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Chairman, 1 think there is some misunderstanding, and as one of those involved in the misunderstanding I believe I should say that you missed the fact at the beginning that there was a House agreement that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would have a few minutes to reply to a question I had put to him when he was being examined on his estimates on Tuesday, and after his reply we would immediately return to the estimates of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The answer to the question by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would in no way change the procedures that are usually followed in recognizing a spokesman for the official opposition on the estimates of the minister that we have before us today. Thank you.


Fred Alward McCain: Order. Does the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wish to respond? I have been advised that there has been a House agreement. If that is the case, it should be observed. The hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle has suggested there was such an agreement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, by way of explanation, I am doing House duty here today but my intervention was based on what I understood to be an understanding that had been arrived at, that I would at the outset of the proceedings merely beg the indulgence of the House to answer a specific question put to me during the time I was before the committee on Tuesday last. The idea was, as I understood it, that after my response we would proceed with the planned and arranged business of the day with my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I think if you will look at the record, sir, I asked for unanimous consent of the House to intervene with respect to these proceedings. 1 try as fairly as I can to bring you the basis upon which I did speak, even though there was an arrangement for my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to participate this afternoon.


Thomas Lefebvre: That is correct.


Bob Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With great respect, I think that you recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North. You just overturned the ruling, respectfully,

November 16, 1979
Supply
sir. I think we are perfectly entitled to make the point that you are able to recognize whomsoever you choose. In previous days here members from all sides of the House have been recognized regardless of party, and it seems to me that once you have made your decision you should not be bullied into changing it because of some alleged practice that has been brought forward by members of the Liberal party.


Fred Alward McCain: If the Chair has recognized somebody prior to his knowledge of there being an agreement of the parties within the House-


Bob Rae: There was no agreement.


Fred Alward McCain: Then I believe the Chair has respectfully and properly abided by the agreement which may have been made by House leaders. It is my understanding, without denial to this point, that an agreement had been made and, therefore, the Chair is obligated to observe that agreement.


Reginald Cyril Symes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Are you appealing the decision?


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, the only agreement was to hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There was no agreement as to who the Chairman should recognize first, I submit that the Chair recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North first and Liberal members should have the courtesy to let him proceed.


Fred Alward McCain: The hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes.


Francis Fox: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions I would like to address this afternoon to the minister responsible for employment and immigration, particularly on the employment side of his department. Later this afternoon some of my colleagues will pursue a line of questioning on matters pertaining to immigration.
I would first of all like to welcome the minister back to the House. We would very much like to have had the opportunity of having him with us on Tuesday when the unemployment statistics came out. However, I understand very well that the minister was in a period of consultation with his provincial counterparts discussing an employment strategy which we hope to see very soon. We, of course, would like to have had him in the House on Tuesday because Tuesday was the first time in 14 months, as I understand it, that the rate of unemployment went up in this country. That is, of course, a source of concern to us, and I am sure it is a source of concern to the minister.
While we are pleased to see the minister consulting with his provincial colleagues, and while we wish him success in these consultations, we would also hope that these consultations be brought to a close as quickly as possible. As the hon. minister knows, we are already up to November 16, the winter period is upon us, and all indications are there that there is going to be

a rather rapid rise in the rate of unemployment over the next few months.
While telling him that we are in agreement with his consultations, and while wishing him success and also requesting that he make haste, we would like to register some concern. While the minister has been in office for five months with the rest of his colleagues, we have seen very little action on the part of the minister or of his colleagues in bringing forward any concrete programs or proposals. We, of course, like the minister, have read the Speech from the Throne, but we still have yet to see any concrete measures taken as a result of that Speech from the Throne, and we are, indeed, anxious to see some of them taken.
Since the minister has taken office the government of his leader has benefited from a low rate of unemployment, a decreasing rate, as I indicated before, over the past 14 months. But since the minister has taken office there have been a number of developments which should encourage the minister to encourage his department to get into the job-creation field as quickly as possible. We have had the recession in the United States and the first effects of that recession on our economy. It is quite clear that the American economy is not going to be picking up very much over the next few months and, of course, that is going to have some very serious effects on our own economy.
We have had these successive increases in the rates of interest, and once again I can only presume that the minister would agree that these increases in the rate of interest are going to have some dampening effect on the Canadian economy, on many sectors of the Canadian economy. Some of these effects have started to manifest themselves through a number of lay-offs which the minister is aware of and which have been brought to his attention and the attention of the government during the course of the question period over the past few weeks.
Our real concern is that in spite of these trends, in spite of these indications of a worsening economic situation, and in spite of the fact that we have had a lot of rhetoric in the Speech from the Throne, the only concrete action we have seen from the minister to date has actually been a reduction in his department's job-creation programs. I understand the minister has wished to transfer some of those funds to other programs within his department, programs with which we are in full agreement. However, we are not in full agreement with the method of financing these programs. We would have preferred to see programs within the immigration side of his department financed by the general revenues of the country, perhaps by moneys that would have come to the minister from the President of the Treasury Board, but we really cannot approve the minister's decision to reduce the job-creation side of his department and to transfer these funds to the immigration side.
Once again, there is no argument whatsoever with the purposes that have been pursued by the minister on the immigration side. We are in full agreement, and in that connection I think the minister has interpreted quite well the
November 16, 1979

desire of the Canadian people to come to the help of people who are coming to this country in rather dire circumstances.
1 would like to hone in on some of these decreases on the job-creation side which have taken place in spite of the international situation of rising oil prices and recession in the United States and increasing lay-offs and interest rates in this country due to the policies which this government has pursued relentlessly in the hope of strengthening the dollar. That, of course, is a valid objective, but once again we do not agree with the decreases that have come about on the job-creation side.
Since the minister took office, the only announcement he has made is that the funding level for the Canada Works program would be decreased to $100 million this year. In doing so the minister has completely eliminated certain provinces from the application of the job-creation program which was initiated by his predecessor. For instance, the province of Ontario received $22 million to fight unemployment within that province last year, but in spite of the fact that the economy of Ontario in general is more buoyant than that of other provinces-with the possible exception of Alberta-there are a number of pockets of unemployment in the province which once benefited from these programs, but they have now been completely eliminated. The minister has actually taken $22 million away from the province of Ontario since he took office.
Moving further west, and if I recall the figures correctly, the province of Manitoba had an unemployment budget of approximately $9 million last year, but this has disappeared from the communities and the areas of high unemployment in that province. In spite of this fact, the minister has decided to take $22 million away from those communities in Ontario, $9 million away from communities in Manitoba and something like $8 million away from communities and unemployed people in the province of Saskatchewan. The story goes on. Last year the contribution to British Columbia was $16 million. This year it is down to almost a pittance in that province. 1 also understand that the amounts have been decreased for the Yukon.
I remember reading recently a press release issued, to my surprise, by the Minister of Supply and Services. I did not know that the Minister of Supply and Services had the administrative responsibility for the application of the Canada Works program in the province of Quebec.

I was very surprised to see the Minister of Supply and Services is now making announcements on behalf of this government about programs coming under the minister of employment. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is very interested-and I am very happy to see that he is interested-because I am convinced he will want to put an end to this kind of attitude being displayed by the Minister of Supply and Services who was not satisfied with announcing the
Supply
program in the province of Quebec but felt he had to show off-


An hon. Member:: That's it.


Francis Fox: Let me quote him: "Mr. La Salle was pleased with the announcement by Mr. Atkey." He was also pleased that this year in the province of Quebec $48 million will be spent on job creation under the Canada Works program. Was he also pleased with the number of ridings that have been completely eliminated from the program? No. Was he pleased that, last year in that same province of Quebec, in the same equivalent period, the Liberal government of the day through the present minister's predecessor announced a program totalling $62 million. Of course not. So I have great difficulty understanding why the Minister of Supply and Services should so rejoice in showing off. He wanted to show that the greater part of the funds was going to Quebec and the maritimes.
He was right in saying that the major part of the funds is going to Quebec and the maritimes but what he did not say is that the amount has been reduced substantially from $62 million to $48 million, without taking inflation into account. So to try and have us believe, as he seemed to be doing in his press release, that the province of Quebec has benefited more from the largesse of the Progressive Conservative government of which he is the great headmaster, not to say the great paymaster, is a way of not telling the whole truth about things because in the province of Quebec this year the program was reduced from $62 million to $48 million, and a whole series of ridings were eliminated.
I would like to hear the minister's comments on that. In other provinces, there was a marginal increase. I know the minister is going to give us an answer on that.

The minister will tell us that the reason he reduced the amount given under the Canada Works program is in order to redistribute these moneys to areas of higher unemployment. I challenge the minister to give us this morning the exact amounts by which he has increased the allocations over last year to the provinces of Newfoundland, P.E.L, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I also challenge the minister to deduct from these amounts the amount by which the rate of inflation has gone up.
As I understand it, there has been approximately a $2 million increase in the province of Newfoundland. I am very pleased for the people in that province. But if we take away 10 per cent of the value of the program in the preceding year, we are almost at the same level as they were last year. If we go through the Atlantic provinces in the same way, we would probably find that in real terms we would come out almost with a decrease in the funds available to those provinces for this year. If the minister has a response on this matter, I would be pleased to hear it.
In reading from the documents prepared by his department last year when his precedessor was in office and comparing the
1406

November 16, 1979
Supply
figures published by his department last year to the figures for this year, the end result is that the minister has simply decreased the job-creation program in his department by substantial amounts and he has not done very much in terms of redistribution. Since I am leaving for Winnipeg tonight, 1 would like to be able to tell the people in that area exactly how the minister responsible for employment has come to the decision of eliminating the province of Manitoba from the application of this job-creation program. Is the minister saying that there are no communities in that province that have benefited in the past from these funds? Is the minister saying that there are no unemployed who would be better off working in Canada Works projects doing things which are of benefit to their communities, rather than sitting on the dole all winter, which seems to be his proposal?
Once again, the minister has not yet come forward with one single concrete proposal, aside from the reduction in the job-creation program, to help people who are unemployed to get back into the ranks of the employed. I know that the minister will say the same thing that his leader told me on Tuesday, that they will be announcing a whole series of things in the budget. I would like to remind the minister that his predecessor announced his employment strategy in September of last year. We are almost knocking on the month of December and the minister has still not come forth with a concrete action program. 1 have put a sufficient number of questions to the minister, and I would appreciate receiving a few answers.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member which, in many respects, constituted a repeat performance of his comments in committee. I am delighted to have the hon. member back again. I think that his performance is a slight improvement over what we heard in committee on estimates.


Francis Fox: Forget the arrogance and answer the questions.


Ronald George Atkey: He has used the same facts, the same allegations and the same arguments. It took him a little longer and it took a little more drama to deliver this time than it did in committee, but nevertheless it is good to have the hon. member back.
The hon. member has conveniently forgotten a very important program. Since he has so diligently read documents of the previous government, I wonder if the hon. member has heard of LEAP which stands for the Local Employment Assistance Program. 1 wonder if the hon. member would call up some of the Metis and non-status Indian leaders in Manitoba while he is there and ask them whether they have heard of LEAP. I can assure the hon. member that they have heard of LEAP and that there are millions of dollars under this government's program in LEAP funds, not Canada Works funds, going into Manitoba to help those who want jobs.
These people do not want the short-term, make-work, government job-creation projects of the previous administration. They want permanent, meaningful jobs that will produce real

goods and services in the economy, real life jobs that the previous government was unable to produce. I would suggest that the LEAP allocation, which is a mere $18 million for this fiscal year and a mere $12 million for the next fiscal year-all of which the hon. member conveniently forgot to mention- will provide long-term jobs in three-year projects to a great many disadvantaged people throughout the country. These are the very people who need work, who have not been able to get it under the previous government and who will get it under this government.


Francis Fox: How many jobs?


Ronald George Atkey: I will give the hon. member his due. The previous government created the program but they did not push it hard enough. They were so preoccupied with the politics of constituency allocations in Canada that they ignored the forest for the trees. I suggest that while the Canada Works program has led to some useful projects, it is one of the most expensive projects for job creation in the history of this country. The taxpayer has not had value for his dollar. If we look at the cost of each Canada Works job under phase 3 of the previous administration, we will find that the costs came close to $11,000 per job.
Where do those jobs go? With minimum allocation in every constituency, do they go to the hon. member's friends? Were they allocated on a political basis or did they get real jobs for people who were in real need?
I have suggested that some of those projects were good. Some in this phase, coming from the constituencies of hon. members opposite, will be good. Nevertheless, that program had inherent deficiencies and I believe the hon. member knows that. While it may have had some utility in the early and mid-seventies as the successor to LIP, its days are over. We must look now toward long-term job creation where people can guarantee that they have a job, and that the jobs in many cases will not come from direct government job creation but from the private sector, which the previous government never realized was the real producer of goods and services in a society.


Francis Fox: Why did you cut the LEDA program? That was the private sector. You cut that.


Ronald George Atkey: The hon. member was interested in Canada Works. We are proceeding this year on a reduced basis. That is no secret. The moneys allocated total $100 million, which is still a substantial sum of money. I can tell him that this government cares about the areas of Canada, first and foremost, in terms of job creation, where the most number of people are unemployed. Surely the hon. member opposite is not going to quarrel with the high allocation of some $19.6 million, or almost 20 per cent of the funds, to the province of Newfoundland.


Francis Fox: Compare that with last year.
November 16, 1979


Ronald George Atkey: He knows that as a portion of the total budget of Canada Works, Newfoundland has done far better.


Francis Fox: Answer the question: compare it with last year.


Ronald George Atkey: Let us refer to the province of Quebec. My hon. friend ridicules the Minister of Supply and Services when he says that at a time of economic restraint we are able to provide 48.7 per cent of Canada Works funds, almost half of the Canada Works funds, to the province of Quebec. I defend that because I think it is an honourable course to put half the funds into the province of Quebec, for two reasons.


Francis Fox: How much less than last year? Half of nothing.


Ronald George Atkey: One reason is that the constituencies that will receive this money genuinely have high unemployment. The hon. member knows that and I know that.
The second reason is one that I am sure the hon. member will also support. It is important in any job-creation endeavour of the previous government or this government to establish a federal presence in regions of our country, not the least of which is Quebec. Surely the hon. member is not going to argue against that federal presence which must be established.
Let me also repeat that the province of Nova Scotia is getting 11.1 per cent or $11.05 million in Canada Works funds.


Francis Fox: Compare it to last year. What did they get last year?


Ronald George Atkey: New Brunswick is getting $15.1 million, representing 15 per cent of the national distribution, and finally, tiny Prince Edward Island, which has severe pockets of unemployment, is getting $3.7 million or 3.7 per cent of the national distribution of $100 million.


Francis Fox: They got 3.1 per cent last year.


Ronald George Atkey: This government has looked at the moneys available, looked at the size of the budgetary deficit, looked at the problems of unemployment and its regional distribution across Canada, and made the fairest and most equitable assessment and distribution possible. There was no pork barrelling of minimum amounts to constituencies right across the country. The hon. member knows that.
I should also indicate that the hon. member has given a great many causes for the likelihood of increased unemployment. I want to share the concern of the hon. member opposite that the recession of the United States may lead to higher unemployment and that rising interest rates in Canada and the United States may lead to a period of higher unemployment.


Francis Fox: It will. You saw the impact study of the Department of Finance.


Ronald George Atkey: There are some concerns that the number of industrial lay-offs in this country are contributing to high unemployment. We see that the single gravest contributor, aside-
Supply


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please. 1 regret to advise the hon. minister that his time has expired on this particular subject. If the minister chooses to speak in addition to the present question, it will be on his own time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I want to continue the discussion which was begun with regard to the unemployment programs of the government. I know the minister will say that part of what I say will be a repetition of some of the discussions that he and I have had, partly through correspondence and partly in committee. This is the first opportunity, however, to get the discussion on the record in Parliament so that people can see what is actually happening.
Since the minister agreed a moment or two ago that it is likely we will have more unemployment in this country in the coming months than we have had, as shown by the increase in the numbers and rates we got just a few days ago, that increase in unemployment will come inevitably because the United States is already in a recession. The effects of that recession must increase the number of unemployed in this country. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that the decision made by this government to reduce funding for employment programs from $175 million to $100 million this year was a mistake of major proportions.
I want to examine what has happened, Mr. Chairman. The government made a decision that the Canada Works program in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia should be eliminated completely, the reason being that the rate of unemployment in those provinces was relatively low. That is true for the provinces as a whole, Mr. Chairman, but in each of those provinces members, regardless of party, and the minister should know that there are important pockets of unemployment, particularly among young people and native people. The minister knows, or should know, that the very large number of unemployed native people, those who live on reserves, are not even counted in the figures which Statistics Canada prepare on unemployment. In all these provinces, therefore, the rate of unemployment is much higher than the figure shown. That was ignored when the minister made his decision.
Since the member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes referred to Manitoba, let me spend a few moments dealing with what actually happened there. The minister made a great deal of how the increase in LEAP funds has satisfied and pleased the leaders of the native communities, the status and non-status Indians. I want to tell the minister that his information is wrong and to put the figures that we have on the record. I know the minister will say that I am using a different set of figures; I am using the fiscal year while he used the calendar year. The minister cannot deny, however, that there has been a substantial reduction in the amount of money available in the province of Manitoba for employment programs. We got our figures from his department. They show that for the year 1978-79, $9.5 million, in round figures, was allocated to the province of Manitoba for Canada Works programs. There was $2,300,000 for LEAP programs. That is a total of $11,779,000. Of that $11 million plus, under Canada Works for native

November 16, 1979
Supply
programs there was $6.5 million, and through LEAP for native employment programs there was $1,300,000. So we had $11.75 million in total for employment programs in Manitoba and $7,800,000 in round figures for native programs. This year we will have no Canada Works money, and we will have only $5.5 million for LEAP programs. According to my calculations, that is a reduction of over $6 million and a reduction in native programs of $4.5 million.
The minister has an explanation. It is not quite as bad as I have indicated, and I hope he will put it on the record, but the fact is that the $5.5 million which is available is substantially less than was available last year. How does this work? The minister talks about constituency allocations as though they were pork barrel allocations. I do not know how it has worked in other provinces, but I know how it works in our province.
The constituency of Churchill, which was represented by a Conservative member of Parliament last year so I am sure there was no pork barrelling then, has a very large number of native people. Churchill's total allocation last year was $3,900,000, of which $3,300,000 went for native programs. With a total of $5.5 million available for the whole province for all employment programs, native and non-native, with areas in which the native people have unemployment rates at certain times of the year running as high as 90 per cent, how can the minister say they are satisfied?
Let us take the city of Winnipeg as an example. Winnipeg has a large number of native people living there. Probably more native people live in Winnipeg than in any other area in the country. Last week we had a report that stated that in the core area of Winnipeg there are 6,000 native children attending school; we are talking about a population of 20,000 people.
Last year the constituency represented by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and my own constituency received total allocations of about $2.25 million, of which about $1.25 million was for native programs. I can tell the minister that 1 spoke to his office about 20 minutes ago. The information given to me last week was confirmed by his office, that the total number of native programs approved and funded in Winnipeg was four. I know that the rate of unemployment in Winnipeg is low, but I want to tell the minister that the rate of unemployment among native people in Winnipeg is very high. These people have the poorest level of education. Now is not the time to give all the figures, but I can tell him that these people have the poorest housing and the poorest health standards. So when the government cuts back the way it did, it is attacking the people who are already the poorest in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Orlikow: I say to the minister that what the government did is inexcusable. What we needed was not less money but more money.
Since I have a plane to catch this afternoon, I will take a few more minutes to raise two other questions which 1 hope
[Mr. Orlikow.)
the minister can deal with when I am not here, but 1 will certainly come back to him in committee.
We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars through the department on manpower training. I have a figure here of expenditures for last year of $738 million, which we arrived at by totalling the amount of money spent for the purchase of training seats in the community colleges, income support for trainees, industrial training, on the job programs and the allowance to those on unemployment insurance benefits. The minister may argue about that figure, but it is certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
1 want to read one paragraph to the minister from a study commissioned by the minister of labour in the last government. It was given to this minister of labour a few weeks ago. This was a study headed by Dr. Adams; I believe he is from McMaster University. At page 117 of this report, which is entitled "Education and Working Canadians-Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Educational Leave and Productivity", the board reports as follows:
Despite free and generally available access, there are an estimated one million Canadians who cannot read or write. Another four million are said to be functionally illiterate-that is, they cannot read, write and do mathematics at a level necessary to function adequately in society.
I know education under our constitution is the responsibility of the provinces. But manpower training, which is so essential if people are going to get jobs-people who are unemployed and not qualified to get adequate jobs-is the responsibility of the federal government and the minister's department. I quoted from this report, but the board did not come up with figures we did not know about before. Despite this record- one cannot blame him because he was not the minister then, but I bring it to his attention and hope that if he cannot give me an answer today, he will give some thought to it-his department each year has been cutting back on the funds made available for basic education upgrading. Those programs are most needed by our native people, who have been undereducated, and by our immigrants, so many of whom in recent years have come from countries where their language is not English. They are also needed by wives of immigrants who cannot function very well in our society because of lack of ability to speak either of our official languages.
So I want to put it to the minister today that his department needs to rethink its whole approach to the training of people who are unskilled and who desperately need training. These are the people who are being short-changed more each year than they were in previous years with the inadequate funding that we had then.
I believe I have about five more minutes. I would like to call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and take my five minutes when we come back from the lunch period.


Fred Alward McCain: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
November 16, 1979

[DOT]	(1400)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back for a minute or two to the question of Canada Works. If the minister checks with the officials in his department, he will be told that the advisory committee appointed by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and myself to go over the applications in past years for our two constituencies consisted of people active in various community groups. They will also tell him that on not one occasion did we ask the officials in his department or the members of the advisory committee to favour one application over another. We took the view that they were competent and would judge on the basis of the best applications.
I want to put on record part of a newsletter which came to me from the King Edward community school. That school is located in the working class part of my constituency. There are a large number of native people and a large number of new Canadians in the area. One page in the newsletter is entitled "No more Canada Works jobs". 1 will read a couple of paragraphs:
-Canada Works no longer exists!!! One of the first things the new federal government did after the May election was cut all Canada Works grants in Manitoba. There will be no new Canada Works projects in Manitoba this year.
At King Edward over the last two years we have employed 11 people (most of them from our own neighbourhood) on Canada Works grants-
They then list some of the projects included in their program, such as classroom teacher aides, lunch and after school program, senior citizen worker, adult education programs, aides to work on the monthly newsletter, community resource booklet, aides to assist the community group and its committees, etc. So that is what the minister and his government have accomplished with their cut-off of Canada Works programs, and that example could be duplicated in nearly every constituency in the country.
[DOT]	(1410)
I want to raise one more matter with the minister, and that is that despite the fact that we have had very large efforts and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on manpower training, it is now obvious that we do not have in this country the skilled workers who are needed. For example, when General Motors announced that it was going to build a new plant, it had to get permission from the government and it got permission from the government to go overseas to Europe to recruit skilled workers. I find it very strange after all these years and these very large expenditures that we do not have the skilled workers who are needed.
I have here a document entitled "Manpower Requirements and Hiring Plans of Ontario Employers in Manufacturing Industries" prepared by the Ontario Manpower commission. Because 1 have very little time I want to read just one paragraph. This document says, and I quote:
Supply
Out of the many hundreds of specific comments made by employers on the causes of their recruitment difficulty-
And there were 250 occupations they could not find people for.
-there emerges a virtual consensus-a general lack of proper training in the industrial trades ... Many employers think that the education system has failed to produce the industrial skills and problem-solving ability that they need; too much emphasis is being given to university training, and only the less-intelligent and ambitious students are being encouraged to enter trade courses.
I know that education until the end of high school is a provincial responsibility, but manpower training is the responsibility of the federal government, and I say there is something fundamentally wrong with our system and with our department if after all these years and the expenditure of literally billions of dollars we are still not able to produce the kind of skilled manpower which is required.
1 know that apprenticeship courses come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but I suggest to the minister that it is time he and his department got together with provincial ministers and decided co-operatively and jointly to establish apprenticeship programs in co-operation with employers and unions so that we do not, after all these years, have to import skilled workers as we are doing at the present time. It seems to me that that period should have long since expired. We have the ability now, if we use our means properly, to reduce the number of skilled workers who are needed now and who will be needed even more if we get the economy working at full capacity, as it should be.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put on record some what I think are cogent facts concerning the province of Manitoba. Manitoba is an important province which 1 had the great honour to visit as recently as yesterday morning and to meet with the minister of labour and manpower of that province in order to co-ordinate better our respective employment programs in anticipation of the events of 1980.
I was delighted to hear the hon. member speak on the subject of training. The estimates of this government for the current fiscal year show that in institutional training we have increased the budget from the previous year from a sum last year of $23.3 million under the previous government to the sum of $24.4 million. Industrial training receives a rather more substantial increase proportionately, from $2.9 million to the sum of $5 million. That is a recognition of the importance of training throughout Canada and in particular in the province of Manitoba.
Finally, I want to say in relation to the hon. member's comments concerning-


Fred Alward McCain: Order. I regret to advise the minister that the time of the hon. member for Winnipeg North has expired. Any further time he uses will be charged to the minister.


Ronald George Atkey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I choose just to take a minute to get on record the completion of my statement. Respecting Canada Works, in dealing with the native population in Manitoba, which is a large and important

November 16, 1979
Supply
population, I should indicate to the hon. member that the number of dollars available this fiscal year is almost as high as in the previous fiscal year. As I have indicated in another place to the hon. member, this fiscal year we are applying a total of $7.1 million to the native population through a combination of both the special allocation and the regular allocation of LEAP, plus the carryover of some $2.6 million in Canada Works from a previous phase. That is to be compared with 1978-79, the sum of $7.8 million. So I suggest that there has been no withdrawal of our commitment to deal with the most serious area of unemployment in the province of Manitoba. 1 mention specifically the constituency of Churchill, which is an area requiring federal government assistance and to which this government has been and will be committed in a substantial way.
[Translation)


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that the name of my distinguished colleague appeared before mine on the list and that he was supposed to be recognized before I was. He was here in the House this morning.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Chairman, 20 minutes is not very much time for all the questions to which 1 had been hoping to get answers from this minister, and with his co-operation 1 would like to use the 20 minutes to ask pointed questions and hopefully to receive answers from him.
The first area 1 want to explore is an interpretation which I have taken from the annual report to Parliament on immigration levels for 1980 in which 1 detect from hon. members opposite, particularly the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism, an air of aggrieved misrepresentation; so I want to ask the minister a few questions about it to make sure that 1 do properly understand it as representing a change in direction, with respect to family class and assisted relatives, from that taken in the past.
Let me direct the minister's attention to page 33 of his report, which he tells us he wrote himself. Although there are many words of comfort in it designed to comfort, if not to mislead, members of the various communities of Canada who may be interested in having their family members join them in Canada, I want simply and pointedly to ask the minister a question. When the minister says in that statement that he will be increasing the proportion of immigrants who are selected against economic criteria-that is, the independent immigrants-knowing that the refugee class is not to be decreased, if the proportion of immigrants selected against economic criteria is to be increased, which classes of immigrants are to be decreased proportionately?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member makes a rather spurious assumption that, because you have a reorientation of balance, necessarily one group must be decreased in numbers. The report is very clear that the principle of family reunification will continue to govern the admission of close family members, and 1 want to assure the hon. member and other

hon. members of my commitment to the principle of family reunification and to maintaining the family class in terms of the number of admissions.
That is to suggest that the other classes-assisted relatives, which the hon. member well knows involves economic criteria, and the independent class of immigrants-may well, in order to right the balance, if you will, have to be increased as a result in 1981, 1982 and the years in the future in order to meet the labour market demand which is ever present in our society and, I suggest, will be even more present in 1981, 1982 and 1983 as we develop mega projects, particularly in the Canadian west. 1 suggest in response to the hon. member that we have a need for a greater number of immigrants selected against economic criteria in order to meet legitimate labour market demands in this country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As I understand the format, the minister and I can continue for 20 minutes.
We now have from the minister an indication that you can have a base quantity in which all components can increase in proportion. 1 want to suggest to the minister that that is just absurd, that if one proportion of a group of components is increased, it necessarily follows that the other proportions have to decrease. So I want to ask him again which proportion is decreasing to provide room for the increase in the proportion of people who are selected on the basis of the economic criteria.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief because 1 believe that the member's question was answered previously. 1 am prepared to continue the current level of family reunification, family class cases, in terms of their numbers. At the same time, we can have a reorientation of the balance to reflect current economic needs in this country. What could be clearer than that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1 would just ask the minister the following question. It does not make sense to me that you can maintain the component of refugees-which is not at issue-or even increase it-


Ronald George Atkey: Don't ask about refugees.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am putting that aside. But that the minister can maintain the proportion of the family class and yet increase the proportion of immigrants brought in under economic criteria does not make any sense to me. If one component in the total is being increased proportionately, something has to be decreased proportionately, and I put to him that if it is not the family class, it is the assisted relatives class that he is proposing to decrease. 1 want to ask him if that is not the only possible way of interpreting the orientation about which he is talking.


Ronald George Atkey: Given the suggested reorientation-and 1 want to make it clear we are talking about future years-and given the operation of immigrant processes, the likelihood of using
November 16, 1979

labour market criteria to increase the balance on the other side of the ledger will and could result in an increase in the number of both assisted relatives and independent immigrants, depending on the circumstances and depending on where the applications for admission to Canada come from, what persons apply, with what skills and education, and other qualifications. The hon. member is fully aware of the immigration processes and the use of economic criteria to equate demand for entry into Canada with economic need from within Canada. It is a fairly simple proposition and 1 fail to see his confusion.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am not confused. I understand very well what the problem is. The problem is that if you have a given total which will be determined every year on November 1 for the year ahead, and you want to increase the proportion of those who are chosen by economic criteria, you will inevitably be decreasing the proportion of those who are not, and those are in the family class and assisted relatives class. I do not see how the country can draw any other interpretation from it.
1 should like to ask one final question on that subject before moving on to some of the manpower problems in the manpower department, not national manpower problems but staff problems. However, before I move on to that subject, I have one final observation to make about this issue, and that is to ask whether this new government is following the practice of having the minister of multiculturalism participate in the making of the decision to increase the proportion of economically chosen immigrants. I ask that question as well because the minister of multiculturalism, in his answer to a question that I asked, indicated that he had read the document on the 1980 immigration levels. I was delighted to hear that he had read it but I was disappointed to draw from that the conclusion that he had not had an important hand in the drafting and setting of those ceilings in an area which should be of great concern to him and to his portfolio.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, the minister of state for multiculturalism and I consult on a regular basis. As part of the government we are fully in accord with decisions that each of us takes. I have no hesitation in giving the hon. member the assurance that the level of family class immigration under the Liberal government in 1978, which amounts to 46,218, will be maintained by the present government. 1 would also have no hesitation in giving him the assurance that the level of assisted relatives, numbering 18,019 in 1978, is generally a level which will be maintained. He has those assurances and I can do no better than to give him the specific numbers from the most recent record of the government which he supported prior to May 22. The assurances are there and there is no reason for going about the country suggesting there will somehow be a decrease or lessening of commitment to the principle of family reunification. The record is clear.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I think that now we are coming closer to the point. I have the statistics to which the minister referred. I did not suggest that the number of family class people or the number of assisted relatives might be reduced, and I am glad to hear it will not be. What I asked was whether the proportion
Supply
would be reduced. In 1978 they numbered 86,000-odd admissions to Canada. The target for 1979 was higher and the result was higher. The target for 1980 is higher. If the minister intends to keep the family and assisted relatives class, if I can put it that way, at the low level at which they were in 1978 in relation to others, then he will indeed be reducing the proportion of that class. If he regards 46,232 or the other number that he used, which was slightly different, for family and assisted relatives class as the total which will be permitted in the 1980 quota or level, then he is indeed reducing the proportion although he maintains the absolute numbers-the proportion will be going down.
This would be consistent with other evidence which he gave before the committee which I have here. I can refer to proceedings of the meetings of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration at page 140 in the report in which he expressed concern that the family class had been growing as a proportion, and I took from his report some indication that he was going to do something about it. I conclude from the answer he has just given that indeed he has and he wants to see, whatever the absolute numbers are, a reduction in the proportion of the family and assisted relatives class. This is quite different from the policies of the former government, and I think he ought to say so.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to see the hon. member draw a comparison between 1978 and 1979-80, suggest that the figures are higher for 1979-80 and that somehow the numbers of family class people to which I made a commitment will therefore be proportionately smaller. He knows the reason that the numbers for 1979-80 are higher. The reason is the special refugee program from southeast Asia. Is the hon. member coming to this House at this late stage saying that he is suddenly opposed to the program of bringing refugees from southeast Asia? I thought I heard the hon. member suggesting last summer that we should have done better than accepting only 50,000 refugees over two years, and that personally he would have preferred to see the number go up to 100,000. I heard the hon. member say that in public on a number of occasions. Quite naturally, if you bring in a large number of refugees, which happens to be the single largest refugee movement in Canadian history, the proportion of other classes will go down. That is nothing new and I am not ashamed to say that. What really counts is the number of human beings who can come to this country and join their families, their husband, their wife, their children. We will maintain the numbers.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I look forward to seeing that happen, but I will believe it when I see it. I have no change to make in my own ideas about refugees. I am delighted with the results of our policy on refugees and, as the minister noted, I have said so on many occasions.
I want to turn now in the very few minutes I have left to some of the staffing problems that have come to our attention in his department. I know that he has undertaken, under a directive of the President of the Treasury Board, to try to find $117 million in his immigration portfolio to pay for the

November 16, 1979
Supply
refugee program. Part of this has come from outside that envelope and he explained that before the committee. But I am very concerned that part of it also is coming from a reduction in the level of staffing within the immigration department. Ele gave figures to us which have taken some time to understand but, as 1 understand them, there is a reduction in the staff at the Toronto international airport and there are some reductions elsewhere.
I want to ask him, again pointedly, if he can give us some idea as to where he will find the rest of that $117 million. For example, in some of our immigration offices in India, in a family reunification case of a husband or wife here bringing a spouse over to Canada as a landed immigrant, one must wait three or four months to receive an answer to a letter and well over a year before any reunification results. I have had a lot of such experiences in my own constituency; perhaps the minister has as well. I would assert that this shocking delay is caused by lack of adequate staffing in our missions.
The minister received the mandate from his colleague to cut and cut until he comes up with $117 million. How will he do it? Does the minister not agree, instead of asking for reductions in staffing with his responsibilities in immigration in his department, that in fact he should be asking for increased staff, not only so that processing can be done more expeditiously, but so that there can be better policing?
One thing which discredits immigration is the presence of many illegal immigrants in the country. Part of the answer to that is more adequate staffing in immigration, so that more attention can be paid to immigration flow. However well meaning they are, I do not think his staff are in a position to do their jobs as efficiently as they could because of simple overwork in many, many locations in Canada and around the world.
What resolution has been made of the problem recently brought to my attention by the union local of Vancouver international airport immigration officials concerning a problem which was public knowledge toward the end of the last Parliament? Members of the union at the Vancouver international airport were complaining that they were underpaid relative to immigration officials working in other immigration centres across the country. Also they were understaffed relative to their workload in comparison to others. I remember the former minister saying that this problem would be looked into, and that some attention would be paid to it in part by the Treasury Board. What has the minister done in an attempt to resolve some of this feeling of ill-will developing within the ministry because of these pressures?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to be brief in giving the hon. member some of the information he requires. First I should like to say in support of the immigration staff, particularly at the major ports of entry into Canada, and at some of the busier missions abroad such as New Delhi, that they are first class staff. They work hard, they work long hours, and they serve well Canada and the new people coming

to this country. They are devoted public servants. I will defend each and every one of them.
At Toronto international airport there are 45 immigration employees in terminal one and 51 employees in terminal two. There is one staff vacancy in terminal one and two staff vacancies in terminal two. There are seven officers assigned to the New York office. In addition, there are three immigration program officers who are engaged locally in support of the work of our foreign service officers. I admit that there are some problems in New Delhi into which I will be looking in greater depth. There were seven Canadian-based officers and two locally-based officers in 1977. This complement is being maintained through 1978-1979, despite cuts in other areas where business has slackened off somewhat.
1 should like to address myself to the problem, apparently, in Vancouver to which the hon. member made reference. I may say in all candour that, in my lengthy discussions with the former minister during the transitional period, he did not think it was sufficiently important to raise it with me. Officials have not brought that problem to my attention since, nor have the Vancouver staff made direct representations to me as a result. Nevertheless, if there is a problem of staff being underpaid or having a too onerous workload, 1 will undertake to the hon. member and that staff to look into the situation and do my very level best to improve working conditions for them. Probably they are the second, if not the third, busiest port of entry into Canada, and they deserve every support I can give.


Fred Alward McCain: 1 regret to advise the hon. member for York Centre that his time has expired.


Mrs. Hervieux-Payette:: Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to put some questions especially about job-creation programs for young people. We know that the throne speech stated that the government intended to organize special programs for them and to set up offices. Now this is my first question: I should like to ask the minister if this new job-creation program for young people will take off something from existing programs which were part of the employment strategy already in effect or if the funds will merely be cut off from the present program and earmarked for those new programs? And then, Mr. Chairman, 1 would also like to know if estimates for the integration program of young university graduates will be available under that program, since the private business sector advises me that there are no such funds in the Montreal area? That is my first question.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, currently there is a program for young people which is a structured program established under the previous government. Some aspects of that program are still continuing and will continue through until the end of this fiscal year, that is up until the end of March, 1980. Some aspects of that program have been more successful than others. In particular, I would mention the employment tax credit program which, while slow to start, has become very popular
November 16, 1979

and very successful, perhaps in the province of Quebec more than in any other province. It is a happy example of private sector employers working together with Canada employment officers and young people seeking work to get more young people into the work force in permanent jobs which are private sector based. That is a good thing, and we may well draw some lessons from the experience of that particular program.
However, I may say that the program of the government, the details of which will be indicated in the budget and the budget debate, in fact will be a new one. There are many aspects to it. It is premature for me to indicate the details of that program in advance of the budget announcement. However, I can indicate to the hon. member that there will be greater emphasis on long-term job creation for young people. We will attempt to receive greater value for the dollars spent to get more young people into the work force. There will be a new emphasis on young people which perhaps transcends that of the previous government. Finally, it will be a program which will have the support of the provincial governments across Canada. It will be co-ordinated with their youth programs in a way that perhaps programs of the previous government were not.
In so far as the job integration program is concerned, I will have to take that question under advisement and get back to the hon. member with greater details. I do not have the information required by the hon. member immediately at my disposal.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with the minister a very important subject, and more particularly the Canada Works program. The minister certainly has an extremely complicated department, and I can understand that immigration, manpower and unemployment are areas in which people are extremely interested. I believe that the results we have been able to see so far indicate that the minister has tried to make a rather equitable distribution across Canada. And yet in July this year, if you remember, the minister announced the fourth phase of the Canada Works program which included substantial cuts in certain ridings and extremely heavy ones in others.
If I look, for example, at the formula the minister used to make those cuts in the Canada Works program, more particularly in the riding of Bonaventure-Oes-de-la-Madeleine, using the minister's figures, I see the rate of surplus manpower in that riding was 32.4 per cent. Using that figure, the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine should have received for this year $5,333,000 under the Canada Works program. If one looks at the way the Canada Works program has evolved over the last four years, one sees that in the first phase we should have got $1,433,000, during the second, $3,855,000, and during the third, $3,132,000. The minister may think that $3 million is a lot for a riding, and I can understand that in certain ridings it can mean a lot, but in the Gaspe area, more particularly in the riding of Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine,
Supply
that is not enough, particularly when based on the department's figures: $5,333,000 was being recommended and following the policy set by the department, that was cut to $3 million.
I would also like to point out to the minister that all those Canada Works projects that were carried out in past years were extremely important to us. Take, for example, construction, development, recreation, research services. Also, we were able to complete works in the riding that could not be carried out with the normal budgets of federal departments in our area and even more in the case of certain municipalities under certain provincial government programs. That is to say that those amounts of money from the Canada Works program provided the people in our area with services, developments that could not be paid for by any other means.
Another major concern in my constituency is the fact that we have three Canada manpower centres. There is the Causap-scal sector, the New Richmond sector, the Chandler sector and the Magdalen Islands sector, and the sums allocated to these three ridings have been distributed according to the population and the number of unemployed. When the minister makes a decision to allocate funds to the various constituencies, I would like him to note and to consider two major points, namely that the sums allocated to each part of the Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine constituency are actually allocated according to the unemployment rate and the population.
I should like to come back to what I said earlier about Canada Works this year. Hon. members will recall that in July the minister sent them a communique informing them of the new formula and the new philosophy of Canada Works projects, and that he underlined, perhaps rightly, that this year he had decided to abolish the advisory committees so that, as we understand it, hon. members would have more opportunity to make recommendations concerning the applications received. I should like to quote from the letter sent to us by the minister on July 17 in which he said:
-I have decided not to set up new advisory committees-
He then went on to say:
Commission officials will be responsible for evaluating the proposals. They will consult the local resource people, provincial authorities, as well as the federal departments or agencies concerned.
Third, he said that hon. members would nevertheless be able to make comments and give their opinion on all projects.
I should therefore like to ask the minister whether, in view of what he said in July, following a recommendation from the manpower centre and the hon. member concerned for all Canada Works projects, any other people or other groups can make representations to the minister to change the recommendations of his officials, whom I believe are highly qualified and knowledgeable people as concerns all the problems of the area in which they work. In this same letter, he directed his officials to consult all the groups concerned. I should therefore like the

November 16, 1979
Supply
minister to tell us whether other sources can sometimes influence the decisions made by the minister.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I also ask the minister to express his views on the matters I have raised.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If hon. gentlemen would excuse me, 1 would like to announce the date of the budget to hon. members of the committee so they will set their minds at ease on all these problems.


The Chairman:: Order, please-


John Carnell Crosbie: The date of the budget, Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, will be Tuesday, December 11. I am sorry if 1 have interrupted the committee, but the first budget will be brought down on Tuesday, December 11.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I know this is only technical, but as far as informing the House is concerned, the hon. member is only informing members of the committee and I am not here to judge the reaction of the House. I would suggest that maybe at a later time, at five o'clock when we finish the work of the committee, the minister might seek the floor again so we could allow him more time.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Papineau on a point of order.


André Ouellet: I would like to know, from the minister who just made that statement in violation of our rules, whether he will make another statement at the end of the proceedings. Did I understand correctly your intervention, Mr. Chairman, that you were to recognize the minister again at the end of this afternoon's proceedings? I would like to know whether the minister intends to speak again this afternoon.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I have to go to a meeting later, but the House leader will be here in the House and certainly prepared to make the same statement at four o'clock.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I would like-


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Papineau on the same point of order.


André Ouellet: I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that the way he is treating this Parliament, the way he is throwing off the cuff the budget date is rather rude and in complete contradiction with his party leader, who said that he would allow members of the House greater freedom of action. This is indeed against the rules-
[Mr. Bujold.J


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I would certainly not allow- Order, please. What the Chair indeed had to point out to the minister was not that he had no right to inform the committee of certain news or decisions, but simply to bring to his attention that if he did announce something in committee, this automatically could be construed in a different way and could be less favourably received by the House. So I would suggest that this be done at the end of today's proceedings. The problem today is that it has been ordered that there would be no private members' hour. The business of the House is therefore to continue until five o'clock, and this may be the reason why he has announced this in committee. I am not in a position to judge.

1 feel that this aspect of the problem has been aired completely. The hon. member for Papineau has made his point. The minister has satisfied himself, but it will be for the House to decide. I am only presiding over the committee at this time. 1 am not ready to allow debate on the announcement that has been made.


Mr. McRae:: Are we not continuing with the minister?


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put a few questions to the minister and I would appreciate getting some answers.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member is asking the minister to answer the questions he put to him.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, 1 will deal with the two questions that the member has raised, in reverse order. Fisrt of all dealing with the approval authority as a general proposition, let me say to him that I take all the advice that I can get from every source. I talk to approval authorities, my project officers in the regions where the projects come from-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In Jerusalem.


Ronald George Atkey: That was unnecessary, my friend. I talk to hon. members opposite as well. I have had very good submissions in a very non-partisan way from persons who have gone into these communities and tried to assist the government in determining which projects, at a time of scarce resources, are the best projects to serve the community. I had my own project officers, many of whom have had experience now through four phases of Canada Works programs, as well as having experience in some cases with the local initiatives program. Of course, I have my own officials here in Ottawa as well as hon. members on all sides of the House. It is a process which ultimately ends up on my desk, and I take full responsibility.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre earlier, there was in previous phases an intermediate mechanism in the circuit called the minister's advisory board.
November 16, 1979

It used to be called a constituency advisory group. I felt that, given the time available and the excellent rapport and communications channels which I have from so many sources, perhaps it was an unnecessary and overly bureaucratic process which did not necessarily assist the community, let alone assist the minister and the government in the decisions which had to be taken. 1 do want to give a list of the persons who in a formal way are consulted, including members of Parliament, local resource persons, the provincial governments, relevant federal departments and agencies.
The hon. member will recall this morning that reference was made to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his department where in some areas of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec applications of the type affecting small craft harbours are seriously considered in that particular context. The employment development branch officials within CEIC, other officials within my department and the local employment assistance program officials are often consulted, particularly if there is any aspect of native involvement in a Canada Works project.
I think it is a good process, and I am hopeful that the projects that have been approved and that will be approved, with the scarce dollars available for this year, will be of service to the country in the primary function of getting unemployed people into the work force.
To answer the first question, which is a good one, regarding the $3 million going to the hon. member's constituency where there is a very high labour surplus rate, I appreciate that the labour surplus rate is 32.4 per cent, which is one of the highest in Canada. While this is not a good situation, I am sure the hon. member will realize that, given a total program budget of $100 million and an allocation to his province of almost half that amount, there had to be some reasonable ceiling on a per constituency basis to make sure that all the funds were not drained into one constituency or region.
The previous government was prepared to consider a variety of options-before the events of May 22 intervened-one of them being the option which I selected. There were other options but I can assure the hon. member that the $3 million ceiling was not intended to deprive his region of moneys that are rightfully theirs. 1 am merely trying to share the money in a way that best fits the unemployment needs of these regions in Canada where unemployment is high, and the province of Quebec is no exception in that regard.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the matter of the minister's decision with regard to the choice of projects under the Canada Works program. The minister mentioned in his reply, and rightly so, I believe, that his officials and the various other government groups were making suggestions to him. But let us come back to the Gaspe Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence area where the minister has civil servants there on the spot on duty with the various manpower centres, and to Rimouski where his representatives
Supply
are required to go out and meet with the groups and organizations concerned who may have representations to make.
The hon. member, the manpower centre, the regional employment centre have all made the same recommendation to the minister and, according to my information, the latter seems to have ignored those recommendations. It also seems he changed the amounts or the projects involved. Can the minister tell the House where he got the other information because, as he mentioned and as I pointed out a while ago, I feel his officials are, so to speak, in a better position and more knowledgeable to make an assessment of those projects. If such recommendations differ from those submitted by the hon. member and the manpower centre, perhaps the minister could justify the reasons which motivated him into making that change, and tell us where he got that other information?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, I attempt to get all the information I possibly can about projects that are coming forward in the form of application. As the hon. member knows, there are far more projects than there are moneys available. The decisions which must be taken are very difficult. If I were to sit down and provide reasons and justification for every project that was either rejected or reduced in amount, I would be working 24 hours a day, seven days a week on Canada Works projects alone. If I had the time, certainly that might be a justifiable exercise, but it is a very difficult process to meet all the demands of hon. members and project officers of local communities. I do the best job I can under the circumstances.
There is also a time element to consider. We are very anxious to get as many approvals through this year as possible, rather than have the moneys go over to the next fiscal year. The more money we can get out in the form of people taking jobs, the less agony there will be in the hon. member's constituency and other constituencies. So I take all the input available and make the best judgments I can. The hon. member and I can argue as to the merits and demerits of each individual project. But the nature of the system is such that the ultimate decision is mine, and I accept that responsibility. 1 give my best assurance to the hon. member, and to all members of the House, that I do the best I can with the resources I have available, but it is a very difficult job. I sincerely believe, based on past performance, that we can allocate those moneys fairly and that we can get people into the work force, which is the primary objective.


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might make a suggestion which will be of some service to hon. members on this side, as well as to members on all sides perhaps, including you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of people who wish to speak, and some of us have just had a consultation. With all due respect, 1 may be able to perform a service to the committee by naming those members who wish to speak and the order of recognition to which we have agreed among ourselves. I will refer in a moment to the hon. member for Nickel Belt who apparently is prepared to

November 16, 1979
Supply
grant time to some members who have travel arrangements. In our party this would be the members for Manicouagan, Saint-Marie, Papineau, Thunder Bay-Atikokan, and myself. We have consented amongst ourselves that the hon. member for York Centre, who has already had a moment but who has a plane to catch, may make his brief intervention.
If I may, I would indicate that the hon. member for Nickel Belt has agreed to the hon. member for York Centre going first, so I think then the hon. member for Nickel Belt would be the next to follow.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. 1 have no objection. This agreement seems to have been made on my left, but this should not preclude any members on my right side who would be standing to get their turn in due time. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich on the same point of order.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Thank you for that reservation, Mr. Chairman. I hope there will be an opportunity to ask a question from time to time.


Gérald Laniel: The time allotted the hon. member for Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine has now expired.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to return briefly and to thank the hon. member for Nickel Belt for this consideration, and then resume the line of questioning I was on before.
I was very pleased to hear the minister's hearty endorsement of his officials. He is taking a very different attitude toward them now that he knows them, than the attitude he took when he first assumed his responsibilities. He did not indicate to me or to the House where he would find the $117 million that his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has asked him to cut from his department. 1 wonder, first, if he would be prepared to assure this House that those cuts will not come in the form of reduced staffing and, indeed, that the reduction of staffing that I referred to will be reversed and at least the complement restored to what it was at the beginning of 1979.
I want to inquire about two other matters very briefly, as I do not want to encroach unduly on the time of other members. It has been disclosed in newspaper columns, particularly in The Globe and Mail of October 9, that 20 per cent of landed immigrants in Canada at the time the article was written, received their landed immigrant status through special order. I know that this is the result of a practice of the government. I am not suggesting that the granting of a minister's permit in any particular case was improper. I have often sought them myself, upon representations from my riding. I think in every individual case, let us say, it is proper that a minister's permit be issued.
The system is a bad one, however, when such a heavy reliance on intervention at the political level is required. I want
[Mr. Blaker.j
to ask the minister whether consideration is being given to changing the system to some method where there would be less intervention and more of the system working to produce the kind of results which we see for legal immigration and for landed immigrant statuts, and about which I am not making any complaint at this time.
Finally, I think the country may be interested to know how the Canadian Foundation for Refugees is doing and how much public support it has managed to attract to date in the form of contributions.


Ronald George Atkey: Dealing with the last question first, Mr. Chairman, I will be meeting tomorrow with the co-chairman, Mr. Mitchener, of the Canadian Foundation for Refugees. I hope to have more information at that time to provide the hon. member with the information he requires.
I can indicate to him, however, that with my encouragement the directors of that fund have been very cautious so as to not appear to be, or in fact to be, competing with other valid and genuine fund-raising efforts in the voluntary sector. They have been co-ordinating their activities so that they are meshing their existing and planned activities with some very successful operations in the private sector. I think that is a very responsible way of proceeding.
Dealing with the question of minister's permits, the figures to which the hon. member refers relate to the experience of the previous government and my predecessor. While he may be sanguine that this is a good system and is not worried about 20 per cent, I must tell him that I am. As the one who is holding this discretionary power, I worry from time to time that, when dealing with human beings, in leaving that sort of power vested in one person and with the amount of delegation that entails, there may be a serious problem of unfettered discretion in our law which requires examination.
I hope this is one area in which the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration may be of assistance to me and to the government in finding ways to contain the granting of minister's permits. I do not mean to reduce in any way the compassion or discretion in genuine cases of need, but to provide an element of consistency and fairness so that people will know and live by the rules. We must make sure that it is not immigration perceived as "who you know", but perceived more as what the fair rules, open for all people, are.
Finally, to deal with the question of staff cuts and the cost of the refugee program, the hon. member well knows that that $117 million is now estimated to be more in the order of $110 million. At least half of those funds will be required in fiscal year 1980-81. Of course that is not before us today as the estimates for 1980-81 have not been prepared. This is a program carrying on through to the end of 1980, as the hon. member well knows. I will indicate the areas of progress in that respect.
Dealing with the reallocation within this fiscal year, this subject was discussed before the standing committee. There was some $17.7 million in job creation funds in programs of the previous government, which had not been expended, not-
November 16, 1979

withstanding that the programs had terminated. It seems to me that if there are funds which have been allocated to programs which have terminated and, by definition, were therefore not necessary or their full extent was not necessary, then the financially prudent thing to do was not to go out and borrow money by increasing the deficit, but to take those unused funds and reallocate them for what I think the hon. member would agree is a very useful purpose.
Just to repeat, Mr. Chairman, some $7.5 million in the job experience training program was not taken up when the program expired, by the edict of the former government, on May 31, 1979. Do we just let that money lapse or do we use it wisely? I suggest the latter.
Some $4.7 million set aside in the portable wage subsidy program was not taken up. The intent of that program was to assist the re-employment of workers laid off as a result of any trade or tariff changes. As a result of those changes, those funds were not required. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting it was imprudent to reallocate those funds to what he says is a worth-while program.
Finally, some $6 million was allocated for training allowances but was not spent because of another program, that is, the use of UI funds for developmental training made the expenditure unnecessary. Surely it was financially prudent to allocate those funds to the refugee program.
As far as staff cuts are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I do not like them if they cause problems. Nevertheless, I reiterate my support for an excellent staff in the Department of Employment and Immigration. Surely, if the job is being done by existing staff, which is efficient, skilled, and has expertise, then one does not blindly charge on and suggest staff increases? That is not the financially prudent thing to do either.
If we can maintain our present level of service which, I suggest, is one of the highest in the world, then the present staff levels may well be adequate.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Papineau on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Lachine rose, a moment ago, on a point of order, and said that he would let the hon. member for York-Centre speak in his stead because he had to catch a flight, we agreed to let him have the floor. But, you will recall, it was the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine who had the floor at that point. Normally he is allowed 20 minutes to ask questions of the minister. Since his time had not expired, I think we should let the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine continue.
Supply


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I think there are a few too many people trying to chair this committee right now. I want to remind members that we are keeping track of the time. The time allotted to the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine expired at 2.59, because his time includes the answer given him by the minister.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister a question regarding the Unemployment Insurance Commission. A problem has been brought to my attention which concerns a Mrs. Linda Huard, social insurance number 465 320 950. This lady was called for jury duty. She was on unemployment insurance and was reporting to the unemployment insurance office. She told the officials that she had been called for jury duty and had been selected. They told her to go ahead, but said that if it was for more than a day they would have to see what kind of ruling they could make. It so happened that the jury was empanelled for approximately five days. When she got home, she found a disentitlement notice saying that since she had been unavailable for work she was disentitled to benefits.
Would the minister clarify what seems to be a very foggy area with respect to individuals who set out, but do not know how long they will be empanelled on a particular case?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, that raises a very interesting point. I would be glad to receive details of that particular case. I am not sure in the interests of that individual whether it is in her or in the member's interest to discuss it on the floor of the House of Commons except by way of general concept in principle. I may say that I am one, above all, who would support the jury system and the onus that puts on a citizen as a condition of citizenship. If in fact there is a conflict between the obligation to serve as a juror, which is a very high obligation, in my opinion, and the rules of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, obviously I will be concerned. I will want to reconcile that in the interests of that person being allowed to do their duty as a citizen. I will undertake in that spirit to investigate that case to see if in fact there is a difficulty. I would suggest that that may well be a case for an appeal to the board of referees in the jurisdiction concerned.


John R. Rodriguez: With all due respect, I do not come here and name people's names unless I have their permission to do so in public. Let us get that on the record.
It is not good enough to tell Mrs. Huard or any other person in a like situation to go through the appeal process. That is not fair, Mr. Chairman. It is not fair at all. If the minister believes so much in the jury system and the responsibility of citizens to serve, then it is in his responsibility to send out a memo clarifying the whole area of those claimants on jury duty. That is your responsibility, Mr. Minister. Do not turn it around and tell citizens that they must go to the jungle of appeal processes. That is my first point.

November 16, 1979
Supply
I want a commitment from the minister that he will send a memo to his offices clarifying the whole question of jury duty and how it relates to those people who are receiving unemployment insurance.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, we do not need to waste a lot of time on this very important principle. It is one that I am very concerned about.


John R. Rodriguez: Send the memo.


Ronald George Atkey: And I would be pleased to discuss it with the hon. member. I do want to tell the hon. member that before 1 send memos I usually try to ascertain facts, and I will ascertain the facts and act accordingly.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to get on to another question. 1 started this with the minister when we were in committee. It concerns overpayments. All we saw were headlines when the Auditor General came out with his report that $290 million was paid in overpayments. Immediately that banner headline in the newspapers was published, every citizen said that people on unemployment insurance were obviously ripping off the system.
As a matter of fact the Auditor General pointed out that $108 million of that overpayment was caused because employers incorrectly filled out the separation certificates. In such cases where this has created an overpayment, can the minister tell us this afternoon whether he intends to take any action with respect to getting those employers to pay the overpayment rather than going after the unemployed people to make restitution for something which was not their fault?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member well knows, those overpayments, which are very serious indeed and cause me concern both on account of the activities of employees and employers, are projections. It is not a very pretty picture, but I do want to tell him that the named individuals, that is, those who received the overpayments, are those in whom there may have been complicity, that is to say with employers who erroneously filled out forms. Those numbers are projections. We do not have the names in many cases of employers who actually filled out the forms wrongly that led to the overpayment.
If we have a situation of overpayment and we have identified the individual or we have identified the employer who may have deliberately filled out the form wrongly and we can spot it, then obviously the investigative personnel of the commission will take steps to recover the payment. That is a logical proposition and I accept that.
I do not want to mislead the hon. member or mislead the general public that we have thousands of names of employers who have wrongly filled out forms and we are going to go after them for the overpayments, because that is not a possibility. Rather, we have a system of establishing a new record of employment which is more detailed. This will take a great deal more time. We are going to insist that the employers fill out that form accurately. We believe that with that new form, with

proper promotion, and with the assistance of private sector groups-and I may say that I have had good co-operation from organizations such as the chamber of commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association-we hope to reduce those instances of overpayment that are attributable to employer error. I think that is a legitimate goal, and I thank the hon. member again for drawing it to my attention.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, common to the minister on this topic, before I move on, is that it seems his department in past audits certainly had no difficulty in unearthing names of those individuals who have been overpaid. I would trust that the minister would be as assiduous in unearthing the names of those employers who the Auditor General, in his survey, says there is a potential for $108 million of overpayment due to their incorrectly filling out the separation certificates.
The other question I want to raise is one that touches on Canada Works. I represent a riding in northern Ontario. The minister well knows, as the former lawyer for Inco, the unemployment situation in the Sudbury basin. He knows well the yo-yo economy in which we exist in the Nickel Belt as in so many other parts of northern Ontario. He knows well that we do not have a proliferation of employers who could take advantage of the Local Employment Assistance Program. LEAP would work well if you had lots of employers in an area. But when you do not have lots of employers in an area which cannot take advantage of the local assistance program, what does this minister do? No sooner is he in office, his seat is not even warm, but holus-bolus he just wipes out northern Ontario from any Canada Works money, which is direct funding from the federal government into the municipalities.
I wrote to the minister. After waiting about three weeks and after much cajoling I finally got an answer, which was nothing but a lot of fluff. In effect he said to me that he has now set a surplus rate of 9 per cent, and we are below the surplus rate. The fact is that even his own office of unemployment for extended benefits uses 9.5 per cent. Today, as I stand in this House, that is the regional rate of unemployment in the Sudbury basin. But the minister does not go by the regional rate of unemployment. He goes by some concocted figure where all sorts of things were used to get it. Nine per cent became the cut-off point. This meant that all of northern Ontario has been eliminated from Canada Works.
We on this side of the House have never seen Canada Works as a solution to the unemployment problem in this country. Canada Works is not the solution, but it did provide jobs. Last year it provided several hundred jobs. In the absence of those jobs, these people will either be on unemployment insurance or welfare. The minister said he consulted with all sorts of people. It is no good to consult if you have blinkers on and your attitude is, "Don't confuse me with the facts or the realities of the situation."
I have here a letter dated November 6 from the Northern District Welfare Administration Boards which reads as follows:
November 16, 1979

Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
Please find attached a resolution unanimously passed by the six District Welfare Boards of Northern Ontario. The resolution is self-explanatory, but I would like to emphasize the extreme importance we attach to this resolution. All the northern boards are very concerned that this program's termination will have drastic effect on welfare costs. More importantly, we are concerned that the individuals who used this program to find dignity and independence will once again be forced to rely on public assistance.
We urge you to use whatever influence you may have to push for the replacement or reinstatement of the Canada Works program in our area.
I wish to read the resolution as well. I quote:
Resolution re: Federal government termination of Canada Works program in Ontario.
Whereas the Canada Works program provided needed employment to persons in rural and northern areas,
Whereas there is often no alternative employment in many northern and rural areas to this program,
Whereas the jobs provided under this program assisted many persons on general welfare in returning to work.
Whereas the termination of this program will mean increased costs in welfare expenditures.
Therefore be it resolved that the federal government be asked to reconsider the termination of this program or to replace this program with some other federal programs to provide employment in the northern and rural areas of Ontario.
It is obvious the minister did not involve himself in that kind of consultation. He did not consult the members of Parliament who represent those areas. He did not consult with me. 1 would have been very willing to give him the benefit of my experience in Nickel Belt. The minister knows Nickel Belt because he has been the lawyer for Inco.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: The minister has been there many times to monitor hearings resulting from lay-offs in the nickel industry. He knows well the situation that exists in the Nickel Belt area of the Sudbury basin. However, what did he do? He eliminated the Canada Works program. He says we have LEAP, without examining the realities of putting LEAP in places where there is no proliferation of local employment opportunities.


An hon. Member:: He should look before he leaps.


John R. Rodriguez: That is what he should do. We know he speaks before he thinks. We have had experience with that. What the minister is doing in this situation is extremely serious, creating real hardship for many unable to get jobs through this program which, in the past, has been a good program.
The minister may be interested in knowing that the money for these programs often found its way into reforesting the area that his friends at Inco destroyed. Why would he bite the hand that fed him? That is beyond me. One would think he would not turn on his friends, but that is what he has done.
I want the minister to stand up now and say that he will reinstate the program in northern Ontario and in rural communities which do not have the opportunity to take advantage of the Local Employment Assistance Program. It is important
Supply
for the minister to come clean to the committee and tell us that.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, I am curious as to why the hon. member would downgrade a program like LEAP. If he were up to date on what is going on in his area, he would realize it will have considerable significance in northern Ontario. I wish to put on record some interesting statistics. Last year there was an allocation of $5.1 million for LEAP. Under this government there will be an allocation in Ontario, and 1 suggest most of it is going to northern Ontario, in the order of $10.2 million. The hon. member asks where the projects are in northern Ontario. I can tell him they are there. There are 21 projects approved and 56 projects planned.
I have had a number of meetings with people in the province of Ontario, in particular the minister, Mr. Bernier, who is very excited about LEAP as a vehicle to create long-term, not short-term jobs for the people of northern Ontario. Certainly there are problems getting three-year projects off the shelf, particularly when one is dealing with native communities. 1 appreciate that concern.
As a result of some initial start-up problems, we revised the regulation to create a transitional phase to permit those who had been operating within the Canada Works framework to develop their three-year projects, but to do that within a one-year period initially. That is in order not to preclude moneys that would be available for employment this winter.
I suggest the hon. member go back to the drawing board. He has been around here longer than I have. I had to go out and earn an honest living.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: He stayed here and got somewhat out of touch as to what was going on in his community. In fact his community, like many others across the country, found that Canada Works was less than successful. As I indicated, it was expensive and it created short-term jobs. It would start up, it would end, and there would be nothing left. It is our objective to get people into the work force on a permanent basis.
I urge the hon. member to spend more time in Sudbury and Nickel Belt and talk to the people working with the LEAP program. He might find he likes it. That really is the answer to the problems of northern Ontario. I am delighted to say that as a result of consultations I have had, officials in the government of Ontario agree with me.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the minister spent the last four or five years making an honest living. I noticed when he was answering me he had his hands in his pockets. He is the first lawyer 1 have ever seen with his hands in his own pockets.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Standard applause.

November 16, 1979
Supply


John R. Rodriguez: It is late in the afternoon and no one seems to have any sense of humour. All the lawyers are on the other side of the chamber, anyway.
Obviously the minister is not in tune with those at the grassroots level. Mr. Bernier with whom he met was speaking as well from a ministerial position. I read a resolution that came from those at the grassroots level, the people who administer the welfare program in northern Ontario.
The minister stated that $10 million in LEAP money was coming into Ontario. In a letter to me, he stated that some $3 million would go to native operations. We have no quarrel with that. We are talking about the rate of unemployment outside of Indian reserves. That means $7 million of LEAP money is to be spread across rural areas of Ontario, including northern Ontario, as well as the urban areas of northern Ontario where, as I pointed out, unemployment is running at 9.5 per cent. The minister did not break down the figures to show exactly how much of the LEAP money will go to northern Ontario or specifically, the Sudbury basin. The argument I have had with the minister is that in effect we do not have the proliferation of employers in the Sudbury Basin who could take advantage of the Local Employment Assistance Program. That is the problem.
In the past the Canada Works program was funded. Municipalities could apply. Municipalities could put in place projects for which otherwise they would have had to raise the money from the local taxpayers, and the projects did employ some hundreds of people who were given some meaningful work and who received pay cheques instead of welfare cheques or unemployment cheques. I think that was good for them and good for the community as well. What the minister has done by this holus-bolus cancellation-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has now expired.


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be short. They concern a specific case, that of the Manicouagan riding. I would have many representations to make, considering the size of this riding, 600 miles by 1,250 miles, but for discussion purposes I shall limit myself to the case of Port Cartier about which I have a specific question for the minister. The Canada Works allocation amounted to $2,600,000. So we did not reach the maximum and the unemployment rate was established before the closing of the ITT plant in Port Cartier. Of course, due to that closing, we now have 1,300 more unemployed who were not accounted for and there is no special budget allocated to help them.
Today again I received a telegram from the people in Havre St. Pierre which is located 200 miles from Port Cartier and those people are rather disappointed to realize that many Canada Works projects have been approved for Port Cartier, but to their detriment because before the closing of the ITT

plant unemployment was concentrated mostly in the middle and lower north shore.
So I ask the minister if he intends to increase the allocation for the riding of Manicouagan following the closing of the ITT plant. I have certain suggestions that might allow him to act rapidly concerning this issue. I shall not mention the hon. member for Joliette of course, but I wish to specify that we already have an agreement with the province of Quebec and the city of Port Cartier to undertake the construction of a wharf for a rail car ferry in Port Cartier. So we might get that project under way immediately. There is an agreement; we only need to make a decision and implement it. I think it is rather simple. In the Havre St. Pierre area, another agreement with Treasury Board provided for a $250,000 subsidy to create jobs in Havre St. Pierre for the winter period.
So what I am finally asking from the minister is the $400,000 that might be given to us out of the $3 million package. Two projects had been announced and I wonder whether the minister is actually prepared to provide the $400,000 for the Canada Works project in Port Cartier, or else immediately give the go ahead signal for the construction of a wharf, as well as for the airport in Havre St. Pierre, that is an amount of $250,000. I would like a precise answer to these three questions.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, 1 think what is important at the outset is to indicate how the unemployment rate is determined for purposes of qualifying for Canada Works moneys. I think this is important not only for the hon. member but also for the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party. The criterion used is the same as that used by the previous government. It is called the labour surplus rate. It is not the unemployment insurance figure which is used in the monthly Statistics Canada bulletin.
What is done, because it is necessary to break it out by constituency-because that was the wish of hon. members and certainly the position of the previous government-is to determine the number of people on unemployment insurance by constituency. That can be determined simply through a determination of the postal code of the recipient of unemployment insurance. That number is taken as a percentage of the total labour force in a constituency as estimated by the Canada employment centres in the region. That gives us the labour surplus rate. If the figure is below 9 per cent, which this year is the trigger rate, then a constituency does not qualify. If it is above 9 per cent, then the amount of the allocation is proportionately increased depending on how high above 9 per cent the case may be.
In this case we have a situation where perhaps the labour surplus rate when determined was before a particular event took place, that is, the unfortunate lay-off of workers at IT and T Rayonier. That is the situation which, nevertheless, will have to be taken into account.
November 16, 1979

1 can suggest that there are two ways to approach this problem. One is through my department, and already officials of the manpower consultative services have met with officials of IT and T Rayonier with a view to assisting the specific employees in that area whether through unemployment insurance benefits, some sort of possible work-sharing agreement or whatever program is available. Those consulting services of my department are available and will continue to be available to the workers and to the company with a view to alleviating the immediate burden of that project.
In so far as the other moneys to which the hon. member refers are concerned, those are, of course, moneys spent in the responsibility of another department. My colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, has been involved in that particular program, and perhaps it might be a bit unorthodox, but the minister is here, and perhaps he could provide an explanation of the further allocation of that money. Alternatively I could, through him, obtain the information and try to deal with the particular problem of the hon. member, which I realize is very real.


André Ouellet: Will there be a new budget? That is the only question.


Ronald George Atkey: The answer to that is no. The allocation of $100 million has been made for the total program, and there are no plans at present for a total increase in the Canada Works fund.
I have just received a proposal from the region-I understand it is on the way to my office-to use a special response feature in this year's employment strategy in the Port Cartier area. This special response feature has a maximum of $250,000. I can give an assurance to the hon. member that when I receive that submission I will review it very carefully, and within the program limitations of that particular response feature I will do my very best to see that the moneys are allocated to the hon. member's area to alleviate the particular situation to which he has made reference. I should reiterate that the maximum is $250,000.
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to indicate whether or not he agrees to giving the go-ahead signal to the wharf project, which would provide employment immediately, and in the case of Havre St. Pierre, whether or not he could approve construction of the airport, which involves spendings of $250,000.
I advise the minister now that these two decisions had been taken previously and I actually believe the funds are ready to be spent for these two projects which are exactly suited to the community.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, quite obviously these are matters which are the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works. They are before the government right now, and there will be every attempt to co-operate with the government of Quebec to see that every opportunity can be explored, including construc-
Supply
tion being undertaken in that region. I am not in a position to give an answer today, quite obviously.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Chairman, my first question refers to that very commendable policy of the new government of giving access to the people to any information which is not sensitive or relating to national security. In that spirit, would the minister agree that the district economist of his department who is based at the district office of the CMC in my region in Rimouski might send me on a regular basis the report he makes about his own forecast about the region, the rate of unemployment, etc.? I refer to all those studies he makes on a regular basis giving all the economic indicators of the region. Of course, if those reports sometimes do include any information given to him on a confidential basis, I am not interested in having that, but I would be interested, as the representative of the people of that region, in having all the other economic indicators. I would like to have access to that information.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting request that I am going to look into. I take it very seriously. I am advised that the activities of the district economist do not involve making forecasts and that neither at the district level nor, in many cases, at the regional level, are we in the business of forecasting as such. So I do not want to mislead the hon. member as to what informatin may or may not be available. However, I will take his request seriously and see what information could be made available that might be of assistance to him to know and understand his region better. Obviously I would file a caveat that I, too, would like to see the information, having the responsibility for it, to make sure it is accurate and not misleading, which is a fundamental precondition before any public release.


Pierre De Bané: I am satisfied that when the minister looks into the matter he will realize they are forecasting and they sometimes include some information of a confidential nature which, I think, should be struck out before being given to the member of Parliament. But there is a lot of information which is most relevant to the exercise of the functions of a representative of the people.
My second question relates to the problem of the Canada Works. What I would like to tell you, Mr. Minister, about that program, puts into question the integrity of the program and, unfortunately, it could put into question the reputation of the minister. I would like to be very candid with you, Mr. Minister, and I would be very happy if you could put the record straight. That program was started when you and I were members of Parliament and so were most members who are here. You said this morning, in answer to my question, that you have not changed the selection procedure.
The way that procedure has worked since its inception-and I think all members of the House could confirm it, on whatever side they may be-is that the civil servants in your department look into those projects, consult many people in the riding, get in touch with the member of Parliament and, if

November 16, 1979
Supply
their opinions concur, they sign jointly a recommendation to the minister. 1 know of no project in Canada that was approved by the minister which did not have the concurrence of the member of Parliament and the civil servants. The minister may check this, and 1 would like to know what member could deny the fact that it takes the concurrence of the member of Parliament and the civil servants of the department for projects to be approved.
In my case, I met with the civil servants in the minister's department about one and a half months ago and within a few hours we had agreed on the project which they had selected. They took my recommendation into consideration and we signed a joint recommendation. Now it is six weeks later, and since I represent a region where the climate is colder than it is in central Canada and many of those projects are affected by the temperature, the projects must be started very early, but as yet they have not been. Why is that? I will tell you, Mr. Minister, what my information is, which, if it is correct, puts into question the integrity of the program. I can speak only for the province of Quebec because I have no knowledge of the situation in other provinces.
The information I have is that all projects emanating from the province of Quebec were sent for comments to the defeated candidates of the Progressive Conservative Party, and they were given until November 15 to provide their comments about which projects they would like to see adopted. I understand that they had an extension until the end of this weekend to send in their input. If their recommendations contradict the ones of the civil servants and the member of Parliament, whatever his political affiliations may be, in many instances until now their opinion has overruled that of the member of Parliament and the civil servants' joint recommendation. I would be very happy if the minister could tell us whether or not this information is correct.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, that is a very serious allegation indeed. I would suggest it is not only false, and untrue, but it may be motivated by partisan political reasons which, I would suggest, are detrimental and harmful to the safe, good, and efficient operation of the Canada Works program. I am disappointed that the hon. member would make such an allegation.
As I told the hon. member in the House this morning in question period, if what he says is true, how is it that $4.5 million worth of projects has been approved already in the province of Quebec and the money is paid out?
Let me suggest something else. Perhaps he may be dealing with officials at the regional level. I wonder if he has taken the trouble to determine who the staff members at the national headquarters are, in fact my personal staff from the department in charge of Canada Works. He might be interested to know that the senior staff member in charge of the Canada Works program is the same staff member who was employed by Mr. Cullen, my predecessor, because he knows more about Canada Works than any other single person in my department. He is a dedicated public servant and he does a good job. I suggest that his remarks today are an affront to that gentleman who is a dedicated and responsible public servant.

I am also interested to hear an allegation which would suggest that the integrity of the Canada Works projects is somehow being compromised as a result of a delay or because I personally am taking an interest in the decisions that are being made. In fact, I make all the decisions. I am interested to hear what seems to be an implicit criticism that I seek advice from all sources, which I do. Your community, sir, is a very complex community, as are most regions in Canada, and surely as a responsible minister it is incumbent on me to seek all the advice 1 can get, and that is what I am doing.
I have already indicated to the other members from whom I get advice-and I make no apologies for the breadth of my consultation-that the decision is made by me, I am accountable for those decisions. In fact the hon. member is quite wrong when he suggests that on previous occasions, under previous governments and previous ministers, the recommendations of the hon. member together with those of the officials have always been accepted, because that is simply not true, and I can provide him with a number of examples where changes were made, project applications were reduced and, in some cases, rejected, or those initially rejected were approved. Surely that is the function of the minister based on all the information he can get, and I can give the hon. member my assurance that I will make all the decisions fairly and in accordance with the wishes of the community.
You and I may disagree as to who defines what the community is, because I think there are more groups than the Liberal party who know what the community is in the province of Quebec. I think there are individuals who are active in that community who have never been members of the Liberal party, who have something to say. If they write to me of their own volition and they have a recommendation to make, in fact they want to sponsor a project, I think it is a healthy thing for the federal government and a healthy thing for Quebec. I have followed, and will continue to follow, the widest possible consultative process that the system permits me in accordance with the law.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Minister, I would like us to be candid. You have said two things. One of them was that you deny the charges and, second, you said that, yes, you do consult all sorts of people. We cannot have it both ways. What I am asking you is whether it is true, whether it is a fact, that the defeated candidates of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec were given until November 15 to put in their projects and, if their recommendations were other than the joint recommendations of the elected representatives and the civil servants of your department, their opinion has been accepted over and above that of the member of Parliament?
I am not denying that every Canadian citizen in Canada has equal rights. I should like to know if it is true that a defeated candidate can override the recommendation of the man in whom people have put their confidence, the man who confirmed the opinion of the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 16, 1979


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, if such an allegation were true, 1 could hardly have approved already $4.5 million in projects. The hon. member suggested that the deadline was November 15, which was yesterday. But as of last Friday $4.5 million worth of projects has been approved. Obviously it is untrue.
Let me be honest about this, because 1 think we are faced with an important point of principle here. 1 received representations from a great many sources. I received a very detailed representation from a Liberal candidate, a former Liberal cabinet minister yesterday. I talked with that gentleman on the telephone and listened at great length. He had some interesting things to say. He was the former minister of national defence. When you were a minister and your party was in power, you were an open minister. I would expect that you accepted repesentations from many persons, whether they were defeated members of the Social Credit, Liberal or Conservative parties. Yes, I listen when I receive communications. But to make the spurious allegation you are making is harmful to the program.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Might I take this opportunity to request members to address the Chair. The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane was the first to forget, which led to the minister committing the same mistake.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Mr. Chairman!


Pierre De Bané: Through you, Mr. Chairman, 1 would like the minister either to confirm or deny the following facts: that directly or indirectly his department has provided defeated Progressive Conservative candidates in Quebec with the list of projects concerning their ridings and asked for their advice about them. That, Mr. Minister, is the fundamental issue if that allegation is founded, as 1 think it is. 1 checked with various sources who confirmed it and I think it is incumbent upon you, Mr. Minister, to defend that practice and to explain why the defeated Progressive Conservative candidates quashed the joint recommendations of the elected representatives and of the officials in your department. I will even dare tell you that I am aware of a case where a defeated Progressive Conservative candidate himself submitted a project for some $224,000. Officials of the department brought it down to about $103,000, but that project still remains the largest in his riding. This defeated candidate managed to ensure that this amount be doubled at the expense of other projects for municipalities as important as his own. Having verified my information, Mr. Minister, 1 know that defeated candidates have had a privileged say in the selection of projects which will be confirmed by the minister.
The best proof I have of this, Mr. Minister, is that never-


Gérald Laniel: 1 must call the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. De Bane) to order. Whenever allegations are
Supply
involved, I suggest it is of utmost importance for an hon. member to address himself to the chair.


Pierre De Bané: What I meant to say, Mr. Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Mr. Chairman!


Pierre De Bané: -and which is very serious, is that the minister will never convince anybody in the House that the office of the minister has yet to confirm the list of projects which the hon. member and the departmental officials had jointly recommended over six weeks ago.
Mr. Chairman, these facts I am reporting are very disturbing, for they may jeopardize the integrity of the whole Canada Works program. You need only question the Conservative candidates who were defeated in Quebec to realize to what extent this program is politically biased. I can tell you also that-

what 1 am saying-and every member in this House could testify to it-is that under the previous administration all members of the House, regardless of the party to which they were affiliated, had exactly the same input, responsibilities, and obligations for the program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: Not me.


Pierre De Bané: No? I would like to hear from you afterwards.


Gérald Laniel: Order.


Pierre De Bané: I am referring to the region from which 1 come, the Gaspe peninsula. The hon. member for Rimouski is a member of the Social Credit party, and because our ridings are close I do not have the slightest doubt he would testify that he was treated in exactly the same manner by the public service as 1 was. 1 do not think the Public Service of Canada would accept the proposition of treating members of Parliament differently.


An hon. Member:: Out of the Liberals I got $100,000; out of the Conservatives I got nothing.


Pierre De Bané: As the minister has just said on that score, he followed the previous administration. The distribution of the budget is done through a mathematical formula. I am not making any accusation that he has biased that mathematical formula to take into consideration the party of the member.


Ronald George Atkey: That is very kind. You are so generous.


Pierre De Bané: I am saying that in the selection we have bypassed the public service and members of Parliament in a very blatant manner, which in my case delayed the decision for six precious weeks in a region where the weather is colder than

November 16, 1979
Supply
in central Canada. I know of instances where one required the blessing of the defeated candidate to have his project approved.


Gérald Laniel: I wish to inform the hon. minister that the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane has only 1 xh minutes remaining and that he should attempt to give his answer in that time.


Ronald George Atkey: Once again the hon. member repeated his allegation, but he raised another novel proposition which I should like to explore for a moment. He seems to be suggesting by implication, at least in the province of Quebec, that because one is a defeated candidate, albeit a Progressive Conservative defeated candidate, that one is somehow disqualified from applying for or sponsoring a Canada Works application.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Ronald George Atkey: That is what 1 heard.


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Ronald George Atkey: I do not accept that proposition. I put forward the proposition that I make the decisions on Canada Works. It is my responsibility and obligation under law to do so. 1 take all the advice I can get. Regardless of what may have transpired under the previous government, it is my responsability to take all the information and advice I can obtain when I am seeking it. 1 will not cast aspersions on the previous government because 1 was not here during the last Parliament. I will make decisions and they will be made fairly in accordance with the needs of the community. I reject the implication that if one is a Progressive Conservative or a member of some party other than the Liberal party, somehow one is disentitled to give advice to a minister or to participate as a sponsor in a project. That is wrong, and 1 reject it.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard an interesting exchange which took up a lot of time. I do not think it proved anything, although I must admit that in my own constituency there was not a constituency advisory council in 1973. They were not introduced until 1974, although LIP and OFY had been in effect for two years or three years prior to that. They came into effect in 1974, and 1 set one up in my constituency. In fact, we were given the right to vote on that for the first two years. Then it was declared that the member was not entitled to sit or vote on constituency associations, and for the last three years we have not had a vote. Since I had gone to the trouble of setting up such an association I never presumed that I, over the ten or 13 people who were on this advisory group, should overrule their collective wisdom, and I never did overrule their collective wisdom.
I can remember on one occasion when I did write to the minister saying I certainly did not think that a certain program should go ahead. I was overruled by the minister, and it

went ahead regardless. That was only on one occasion, so I do know of an occasion at least in my own situation where a minister disagreed with what my advice and thoughts were, but by and large the constituency advisory group has been quite useful.
I know also, of course, that each year we talked about politicizing Canada Works, LIP and OFY, because it turned out often enough that Liberal cabinet ministers ended up getting larger shares than anybody else, and Liberal members, if you broke it out, always got more than Conservative members. It was just like decentralization. There was decentralization into 16 constituencies, 14 of which were represented by Liberals, and 11 of them by cabinet ministers. These things sometimes happen. It must be a freak of nature that they always happen that way.
However, Mr. Minister-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You have had your chance. You will have to get him on another day. I have some questions I want to put to the minister now. 1 too-


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you for your assistance. I too, Mr. Chairman, would like through you to inform the minister that I would like to have the results of the regional economist for my constituency because we have got those results through one method or another before. We have also got results from each of the manpower offices, and 1 can tell you that in my constituency the results of the manpower offices and the results of the regional economist varied greatly, very, very greatly from what they call the labour surplus rate.
This labour surplus rate formula which was introduced by the previous administration under the directorship of Bud Cullen I have disagreed with entirely from the beginning. I shall explain why. If you are in a place of high unemployment-and you only have to go 50 miles up the Ottawa River on the Ontario side and you will find 15 per cent or 17 per cent unemployment-you do not have to go all the way to Matane, Labrador or Newfoundland, because there are pockets of high unemployment in Ontario and on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. I want to tell the minister, and I hope he will pay attention, if you go by just the postal codes of those people who are getting cheques from unemployment insurance and you have a high rate of unemployment, there will be those who have gone through the entire period getting their cheques and using up all their weeks and have fallen off at the end who are not going to be counted any more because they are not getting cheques.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, if you have an area of high unemployment, the young people coming out of school cannot get jobs and they cannot put in enough weeks' work to ever get unemployment insurance, so they are not counted.
When you have those areas of higher unemployment, the ones who have used up their benefits and have fallen off at the
November 16, 1979

end, and their postal codes are not being churned out of the machine to give you the labour surplus rate, and those who have come out of school are young and have not been able to put in enough weeks to get laid off and receive cheques, will not be counted. This has exacerbated the problem at both ends and you are just counting those people who were lucky enough to get a job and are still getting their unemployment insurance cheques. That is why I have always disagreed with this program.
1 fought the former minister for three years on it. Eventually, after three years, he wrote me a letter and he partly agreed. He did not wholeheartedly agree but he partly agreed. I notice that the minister is following the same system this year. I hope, if there is any further project in the future, a revised system will be used rather than that system because of its failings, as I see them.
Quite frankly I would hope it would be a system that might take into consultation the local members and the regional economists. I hope this would be possible. I just wanted to emphasize how much I dislike the labour surplus rate formula developed by the minister's predecessor, and I hope that he can guarantee that this will not be used if there are any future projects or programs. Perhaps something could be done in co-operation with the regional economists because 1 trust their figures are a lot better. I have always found their figures to be much higher than the labour surplus rate.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, those are concerns that I have shared with the hon. member previously. I can tell him that I am not happy with the labour surplus rate as the determinant of unemployment in a region. I think it is one of those factors that has developed under the previous government because of the insistence of the previous government that Canada Works moneys and Young Canada Works moneys and, before that, LIP moneys, be allocated by constituency, that is, the political boundaries. Apparently there was no other means devised of determining the unemployment within a constituency other than by the postal code and the labour surplus rate, with all of the imperfections the hon. member has so articulately put before the committee.
Were 1 proceeding on any new employment or job creation programs that were to be determined on a constituency by constituency basis I would be earnestly searching for an alternative that was an improvement. However, I can assure the hon. member that Canada Works is in its final phase. The new employment strategy of the government, to be announced on budget night, December 11, will indicate that we will put the money into those regions, not those constituencies but those regions that need it the most, on a more fair and more equitable basis, so the people who are truly unemployed can have the easiest and most convenient access to the money.
In so far as the information from regional economists is concerned, again I can give basically the same answer I gave to the previous member, that I will inquire into the possibility of obtaining that information in keeping with the spirit and the practice of freedom of information.
Supply
I should say, as I have on other programs such as immigration, unemployment insurance and employment, that I will use as my guide the freedom of information bill to determine that information which is to be disclosed, and there is a presumption in its favour, and that information which must be withheld because it may be in the area of advice or representations to the executive and thereby exempt, as clearly determined by statute.
To the extent the freedom of information regime permits me to make information available, I will endeavour to do so. I want to warn the hon. member that the freedom of information exemptions are also binding on me in my present practice, as they soon will be in terms of law when it becomes the law of the land.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister very much for his comments. The only thing I want to say is that I would not be looking forward to forecasts from the regional economists or from the regional manpower centres because they may be in the area of hypothetical projections into the future. I would suggest if they have some statistics based on what is the present fact or the present situation, rather than projections three months or six months into the future, that is probably the kind of information I would want. I will take all the information I can get, but I will take information on the existing facts quite happily. I appreciate the minister's undertaking, and I just wanted to mention that.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I wish to intervene this afternoon to follow on the remarks of my colleague from Matapedia-Matane, whose rather simple and direct questions were completely eluded by the minister who did not answer as directly and honestly as we would have expected him to do. The attitude of the minister seems curious to me. I think that through his evasiveness this afternoon he lost many points in public opinion. The minister would have everything to gain by being open, according to the motto of his leader who talks constantly of a new open government in Canada. In skirting the questions of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane the minister succeeded only in creating doubts in members' minds who listened to him, particularly in the minds of Canadians watching our proceedings on television.
I do not understand why the minister abolished the consultative committees that had been established to act as consultants in the ridings, to inform and help the government make decisions. The minister did not give any explanation for abolishing the consultative committees. Will they be replaced by a single consultant, that is the Progressive Conservative candidate defeated at the last election, or the new Progressive Conservative member elected to the House? We read in the throne speech, Mr. Chairman, that the government wanted to give greater importance to members of Parliament. Up to now the only importance they have been granted was a reward to a few Progressive Conservative members by naming them to some study groups on agriculture and transport. We have seen

November 16, 1979
Supply
that this government, supposedly so respectful of rights and privileges of all members of Parliament, did not name to parliamentary commissions representatives of all parties, but exclusively Progressive Conservative members. Now we learn that not only are Progressive Conservative members favoured, but even Progressive Conservative candidates defeated at the last election seem to be more important in the Canada Works program than the minister's own officials, and certainly the members of Parliament democratically elected by the Canadian people of all provinces.
1 think the minister owes us some explanations in that respect. 1 suggest that the minister's failure to deny that a list of the projects for every constituency had been sent to the Progressive Conservative candidates defeated in the province of Quebec is proof enough that there is some patronage and manipulation taking place in his office, in his department, surely with the complicity of the hon. member for Joliette, the Minister of Supply and Services, whom I see now giving all kinds of information to the minister. We notice that the Minister of Supply and Services is particularly embarrassed by those revelations.


Mr.   La Salle@: I am looking after the interests of Quebec.


André Ouellet: The Minister of Supply and Services, the hon. member for Joliette, has just told us that he is looking after the interests of Quebec.
I am most happy to see that he is serious about this job, but I find it rather unacceptable that he cannot move any quicker because we are now aware of the facts. There have been telephone calls from defeated candidates. Moreover, quite a number of letters have been sent to his office in the care of a certain Mrs. Lavigne who works in the minister's office, who is responsible for reviewing with the local patronage groups all the Canada Works projects for the province of Quebec coming under the jurisdiction of the minister from Joliette, and for deciding whether such and such a project should be approved or not.
Mr. Chairman, the secretary of a municipality in Quebec called the minister's office within the last few days. He wanted to know how it was that the project of his municipality had not yet been approved, it had been stalled for weeks in the office of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The municipal authorities were anxious to know whether the departmental officials had approved their project, which the local member of Parliament democratically elected by the people had also approved. But the project did not seem to have been allowed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He was told by someone from the office of the Minister of Supply and Services that this dear minister who is looking after the interests of Quebeckers had obtained a postponement from his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and

that his staff would have to work through the weekend to make a selection of the projects recommended by defeated Progressive Conservative candidates in Quebec, and moreover, that some projects already recommended by the department and for which the Liberal member of Parliament had given his approval would necessarily be rejected to provide the funds required for the projects submitted by Progressive Conservative friends.
This is the information that the secretary of a municipality was given by the secretary in the office of the Minister of Supply and Services. Mr. Chairman, 1 have no objection to seeing the Minister of Supply and Services play a special role in allocating funds set aside for the province of Quebec. He was elected, he is a minister of the Crown, he has special responsibilities, and I have no objection to his giving advice to his colleague. 1 think this is quite acceptable. He, the Minister of Supply and Services, so very candidly stated for all to hear after the last election that they intended to resort to patronage, that they had been in opposition long enough, that finally he would have an opportunity to do so and that he would hurry to do it.
What I do not accept from the Minister of Employment and Immigration is his current procrastination. He does not even have his colleague's candour and frankness to state squarely that, yes, patronage is rampant in his office, thanks to the complicity of officials from employment and immigration and from the office of the Minister for Supply and Services, that together they delayed for weeks projects that should have been approved for the province of Quebec, because they have not finished consulting with all the defeated Progressive Conservative candidates, and that very soon these funds will be approved and spent in Quebec. I wish he were frank and honest enough to state squarely that they are resorting to patronage. This afternoon, the minister in his protracted answers eluded the actual questions put to him in turn by the hon. members for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, Manicouagan and Matapedia-Matane.
Every time those members asked him questions, he did not have the courage to confess publicly what his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, does not mind saying openly. He may be right, but then he may be wrong in being that open. It is for him to decide and for the people to judge. But at least he is honest enough to tell us openly what he is doing. 1 do not understand why the Minister of Employment and Immigration should not be that open. I find this program is too important and has too much impact on thousands of Canadians to play with words like that and waste the time of members by dodging the questions that are put to him.
Earlier the minister glossed over the fact that apparently a Progressive Conservative candidate submitted a project for over $200,000. In answer to the hon. member for Matapedia-
November 16, 1979

Matane, he said that the fact that someone has been a Conservative candidate should not stop him from submitting a project. Nobody ever denied anyone, even a defeated Conservative candidate, the right to submit a project, but what the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane wanted to know from the minister, and the minister did not answer him, is whether it is true that that Conservative candidate submitted a project for over $200,000, that the project was cut by Department of Employment and Immigration officials to at most $100,000 and following pressures made by that Conservative candidate, was going to be given the full amount in spite of and against the advice of his departmental officials. That is a very specific question, and yet the minister would not answer.
Once again, I put this on the same list of overwhelming facts that allow us to question the good faith, the good administration of that program. I add that to the unexplained abolition of advisory committees; I add that to the non-denial of lists of projects in every riding being sent to defeated Conservative candidates; and I add that to the desire of the minister to sweep that under the carpet today, and to try not to give straight answers to the legitimate questions put to him. I believe this program has been too important in the past for it to be so seriously compromised by a new administration.
Mr. Chairman, you will remember that when the Conservatives were in the opposition, they blamed the government for not solving the problem of unemployment in this country. They said at that time they were prepared to take over, they had all sorts of projects in mind to fight unemployment efficiently. Well, they are now in power. They have formed this government for over six months, and curiously, those people when they were sitting over here on the left of the Speaker, were full of ideas and projects. Since they have formed the government and sat to the right of the Speaker, they no longer seem to have any ideas, any projects, any bright ideas about solving the problems of unemployment in this country. The facts are there, Mr. Speaker. Since that party formed the government, no new job-creation program has been launched in this country. Some programs in effect under the previous Liberal government have been cut. A program which I find as important as the on the job training program has been cut by the Conservative government. Other important programs have experienced substantial budgetary cuts, such as the Canada Works program.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that this arbitrary decision of the Progressive Conservative government to cut off the minimum funds made available to every constituency in Canada is unfair to some Canadians living in constituencies that have not as much unemployment as in others, but where there is surely some hardship and problems and where a program such as the Canada Works program could be quite effective.
All allowances have been cut in my constituency of Papi-neau. For a few years we had been receiving an average of $400,000 to $450,000 a year enabling hundreds of individuals
Supply
to work, and especially several hundreds of others to receive some care or services which would not have otherwise been provided.
The minister tells us that the Canada Works program does not meet his criteria as a permanent job-creation program. He tells us we have to trust the private sector which should replace the state as a provider of stable employment in our market economy. I say to the minister that he erred when he cut, as he did, the Canada Works program in 33 Quebec ridings, and in particular, in the riding of Papineau, because all sorts of people were benefiting from its advantages, people who now live under the threat of no longer receiving those advantages, and who cannot bank on private enterprise for the same services.
1 am thinking in particular of a project which, last year, got some $30,000 for a social, cultural and family centre designed to enable people to take warm meals to the aged in their homes, to help them with their housecleaning, and give them a bit more comfort and assistance than they normally get. Private enterprise will never offer that type of service. Private enterprise will never replace the Canada Works program to dispense that kind of help.
Yet the Canada Works program assistance was drastically reduced in the riding of Papineau, depriving hundreds of senior citizens of that very interesting and important service, which not only helped them but also gave employment to a score or more persons in my riding.
There is another project, and I shall close on that note, Mr. Chairman, which deals with the re-integration of the alcoholic in his work environment, this one outside my riding. The Montreal AAA received, thanks to the Canada Works program, a substantial amount to perform essential work in that field; it may no longer receive any grants since the program was cut in my riding; not one single penny has been spent in Papineau because of the inhuman, irresponsible and unacceptable attitude of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Gérald Laniel: The time of the hon. member has expired. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Mr. Cameron:: Mr. Chairman, I was beginning to think I was going to get blown right by five o'clock. However, I do want to ask a couple of questions of the minister. First, I will describe my riding a little bit because I know the minister has not seen it. It is a riding consisting of about 200 miles north and south, and about 175 miles east and west. T'he main centre is Kamloops. While the citizens of Kamloops can stand on their feet at all times and expect no help, I do have in my outlying ridings many small communities. People living in these communities work for the main in the logging industry, sometimes they do a little prospecting in the summer, and

November 16, 1979
Supply
there are a few trappers. I wonder could these people qualify for LEAP money?
In my area we also have a lot of Indian reserves. The people in the Indian reserves are generally the first ones out of work. Could the minister take a close look to see if he could help them in any way?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Chairman, I can reply to the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap by saying that yes, both trappers and natives, Indians and Metis, can qualify for the LEAP program.
Indeed, I think in his part of the country, the interior of British Columbia, the LEAP program is ideally suited to serving the needs of those communities, for two reasons. First, it is related to employment that is meaningful. In a sense it is related to economic assistance in projects that produce real goods and services and make a contribution to the economy and are not simply make-work projects.
Second, and perhaps equally important, it provides a vehicle for long-term employment, up to three years. It is not the "start-stop" type of operation which has plagued government job creation at the federal level in that part of the world for so long. I would encourage the hon. member through his local office at the Canada Employment Centre to make contact on behalf of his constituents to provide whatever assistance he may seek.
I may take this opportunity to answer some of the concerns that the lengthy speech of my friend opposite prevented me from doing. I may say that I find it surprising that the hon. member for Papineau seems to take objection to the notion that lists of projects that are valid and legitimate projects forthcoming from a region, some with the concurrence of MPs and some without their concurrence, having been assessed by project officers of mine, should somehow be kept in secret.
1 want to make the hon. member an offer to indicate the openness of approach, and consistent with the position I indicated to him, that I take all the information I can get. 1 seek all the advice I can get. If the defeated candidates in the riding of Joliette or in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi or in the riding of Lotbiniere wish to come to my office or to go through the hon. member for Joliette-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: -to obtain the information, I would be delighted to make the projects from that particular constituency available for their information and to invite their recommendations. I say this in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman. I think that a person who has run for office in a constituency, whether he be Conservative, Liberal, Creditiste, or NDP, knows a little bit about the constituency from which an application may come. As long as we have a Canada Works program-and this is the last phase-that is based on constituency allocation and is designed for projects that will be useful to the community to provide employment in the community, I am going to seek advice from every single source which cares to give me advice. I think that is consistent with the philosophy of the program

and I make no apology for having sought advice from a great many sources.
It is interesting that the hon. member for Papineau should seek to give me a lecture on the art of patronage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why not? He knows a lot about it.


Ronald George Atkey: I am tempted to say that he should be a good teacher in his own right. I only have to make reference to the very successful career of one of his own friends and assistants who, with the assistance of the hon. member when he was a minister, had a rather meteoric ride in the public service of Canada in a way in which I would never suggest was patronage, but nevertheless reflected the very close interest and assistance of the hon. member when he was a minister. The gentleman to whom I made reference was a former member of this House in the period 1968 to 1972. On his defeat in 1972 he became an executive assistant to the minister where he trained for the next election, which he fought and lost in a Toronto constituency in 1974. I am sure there was no element of patronage in this. For his efforts he was given the position of vice-chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation. He served in that position for a period of three years. Not to be outdone by that particular effort, the same individual was promoted in 1978 to chairman of the Egg Marketing Board.


An hon. Member:: The farmer's friend.


Ronald George Atkey: The same individual carried through with the assistance of the minister right up until one month ago when, for some strange reason, through some happy consequence of events, the true mettle of that gentleman-the friend of the former minister-was found out. Not only could he not get along with the board of directors of the Egg Marketing Board, but he could not get along with the government, for reasons which are still strange to me. I suspect it may have had something to do with his salary, but I do say it is exceedingly strange that the hon. member opposite should lecture me, a newcomer to this House, on the subtle art of patronage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: Let me get back to unemployment and assisting the unemployed people of this country.
It is funny that the hon. member makes the same mistake as did one of his predecessors, the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes who indicated that this government had put forward no programs to assist the unemployed. I ask him the same question I asked the hon. member for Nickel Belt: have you ever heard of a LEAP program? This is the Local Employment Assistance Program. It is just a small amount of money, $18 million this year, $12 million next year, which is there to assist the people who need it. I do not know whether any of that LEAP money is going into the Papineau riding. I suggest a great proportion is going into the province of Quebec. Quite apart from that, I wonder if the hon. member could tell me in last year's Canada Works allocation what
November 16, 1979

portion of the national allocation to Canada Works went into the province of Quebec? I would suggest that if he checks the figures he would find it is about one-third. About one-third of the money under the previous government went to the province of Quebec. That is fair. I will give the hon. member that. It is fair because Quebec has a population of about one-third of the total population of Canada. It is reasonable that Quebec will get one third of the total dollars.
What does the new government do, having an opportunity to assess Canada Works in a time of restraint, to maintain a program to provide jobs for the unemployed this winter? The new government is providing 48.7 per cent of a total allocation of Canada Words for the province of Quebec. That is a significant improvement in a proportional sense. I would suggest that it is an indication of our commitment to fight unemployment in that province.
I would suggest, notwithstanding that the hon. member feels deprived in Papineau, that the increased allocation in proportionate terms together with the broader advice that this government is seeking and receiving as to good projects throughout the constituencies that need them, that the successs of the program this year will exceed anything ever achieved by the previous government.
In conclusion, I think the remarks of the hon. member for Papineau about the private sector's involvement in job creation really do indicate, for all concerned to see, the difference in philosophy between this government and the previous one. I am not sure I fully understand the gist of the hon. member's remarks. I heard him say something to the effect that the private sector really cannot create the jobs that are necessary. He said something to the effect that the private sector cannot provide meaningful jobs. Let me tell him that is a difference. 1 am glad he said that.
I want to assure him that job-creation projects, employment strategies from the government, at present will rely on the private sector. We will do that for a variety of reasons. First, the jobs created under this government in the private sector will be permanent jobs, not start-stop, make-work jobs that disappear like a bit of air in the night. They will be lasting jobs that are meaningful for people.
Second, let me tell the hon. member something about the cost of job creation. If he examined the records, and I would be pleased to provide the information, he would see that Canada Works for job creation is one of the most expensive programs that any federal government has ever put forward.
If we are really concerned about cost effectiveness, which this government is, we will try to get the greatest value for the dollar being spent to try to help as many people as possible. I suggest to the hon. member in those phases of Canada Works that attempted to provide minimum constituency levels, while it may have made his job easier because he had $150,000 to hand out in Papineau or wherever, it did not help the unemployed in the areas where they needed it the most.
Supply
In this case we have applied the available resources to those constituencies with the highest unemployment rate. That is the position that has been recognized throughout the country as the final one.
I should mention that there is one group in this whole process who have yet to be mentioned. What about the provincial governments? Where do they stand in all this? They, of course, have responsibilities in the field of job creation and an obligation to sustain welfare costs. Like all levels of government, they would prefer to have people work rather than be on welfare. We share that goal.
I have engaged in two extensive, comprehensive federal-provincial consultations with my ten provincial counterparts in the labour manpower field. They are unanimous in telling me that Canada Works is a program which should be terminated. It is a program that is political in nature, expensive, distorts provincial spending priorities, creates expectations that can never be met, is inefficient and should be ended.
We have had unanimous support from across the country for that position. Nevertheless, in the face of very high unemployment in regions of Canada like Quebec, the four Atlantic provinces, and to a certain extent British Columbia, we have maintained that program one more time for the purpose of this winter, for which we make no apology.
There will be an opportunity on December 11 because the full details of the new government's approach to employment strategy will be fully revealed and discussed before the Canadian people. 1 want to emphasize three points that will be the underlying philosophy of that program which will be available this winter as a new program to help the unemployed of Canada.
First, our emphasis will be on the creation of long-term jobs. We are not interested in short-term job creation which is expensive and does not really help anyone. Second, there must be a concerted effort to help the youth of Canada, those 24 and under who find themselves without jobs, who in fact cannot get that first job and are fast in danger of becoming another generation of unemployed drawing unemployment insurance.
The final point, and I again emphasize this, is that this government will rely on the private sector to create the real jobs in this society. We believe that through the employment tax credit system announced in the throne speech we will be able to create more permanent jobs, jobs that will last a longer period of time. That is the way to go, and that is the way this government will be going.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being 4.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to the order adopted Wednesday, November 14, 1979, to interrupt the debate and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Committee of the W hole stage of the bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
1430

November 16, 1979
Business of the House
Schedules A, B, C and D agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the government House leader tell us if we will proceed on Monday with Bill C-18 as planned?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, followed by Bill C-20. I do not see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) in the chamber. Because he had some problems with respect to meetings this afternoon, the minister came in to inform the House as soon as he could of the date of the budget. There was some question about whether that would be appropriate during the course of committee proceedings. The Minister of Finance felt he should do it as quickly as he could. I wish to confirm now that the Mace is on the Table the advice given to the committee this afternoon, that a budget will brought down on December 11, 1979.
[ Translation\


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) for informing the House that the government has decided to bring down its budget on December 11. I rose on a point of order earlier this afternoon because 1 would have appreciated if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) had had the courtesy to inform members representing the opposition parties of his intention of announcing in the House the date of the budget. I think that he has somewhat abused parliamentary procedures by defiantly interrupting the debates of the Committee of the Whole, without even waiting for the Chairman to recognize
him, rising decisively to advise us that the budget will be brought down December 11 and leaving forthwith.
All I can say is that Liberals are very happy to see that the government will at last be introducing its budget. We have been expecting it for a long time, and we dare hope it will not be a Santa Claus with an empty bag who will be here just before Christmas, but that this budget will satisfy the needs of working poor, senior citizens and all those who are affected by the undue rise in interest rates and the thoughtless increases in the price of oil in Canada.


Mr. Stevens:: As Acting Minister of Finance, I would like to assure the hon. member that we will make the best of the situation the former government left us with. The budget will certainly be a great improvement over the November 16 budget.


André Ouellet: No more excuses. Take your own responsibility.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the government House leader a question. With the budget coming down on December 11, can he assure this House that the budget debate, which I believe takes six days, will be six consecutive days, or can he tell us now what the order of that debate will be?


Walter David Baker: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot confirm the hon. member's question. In due course he will know.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall 1 call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 4.52 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 19, 1979