1979-12-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, considering the dire straits in which the chicken industry is in Quebec and in all Canada.
Yesterday I received a copy of a telegram which the Quebec poultry producers' union sent to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) in which they urged him to order an immediate stop to any issue of supplementary import quotas to the United States, since the present inventories and physical production facilities are sufficient to meet the demand of the Canadian market. Besides, the Quebec Federation des producteurs de volailles, supported by the UPA, is worried about the excess production of chicken piling up in storage facilities in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. Therefore, 1 move:
That the government give instructions to have any supplementary imports of chicken from the United States stopped immediately, that the agreement on import quotas with the United States be re-negotiated to the level of egg import quotas, that the government submit the request of Canadian producers to GATT arbitration if the Americans disagree.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ELECTION PROMISE TO REDUCE CHEESE IMPORTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Due to the fact that this government has
been in office more than six months now, and that the dairy producers of this country are still awaiting the delivery of the election promise, namely, to reduce cheese imports by some 10 million pounds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan):
That this government take immediate action to deliver this election promise, and if not that the Prime Minister make a public apology for deliberately misleading our Canadian dairy producers during the May 22 election campaign.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. An application for unanimous consent must retain parliamentary form.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of recent press reports that two government ministers, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), have stated they found complying with government conflict of interest regulations regarding making public, or blind-trusting, their personal financial affairs so onerous as to cause them to question their commitment to public life, and since the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) are seeking to be exempted from the regulations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That in view of their contempt of Parliament, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board be suspended from their ministerial posts, without pay, until they comply with the regulations.


Mr. Crosbie:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a

December 6, 1979
matter of pressing and urgent necessity. Whereas on December 5, lawyers for the Council of Yukon Indians sent a telex to the Minister of Justice alleging that the new powers recently conferred by the government on the Yukon territory were unconstitutional and illegal, and whereas the Council for Yukon Indians have requested the Minister of Justice to direct a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act to determine the constitutionality of these changes, I move:
That this House direct the government to make such a reference to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible so that these legal questions can be settled in order to facilitate land claims negotiations and planning for the pipeline in the Yukon.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. George Cooper (Halifax):: I rise, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Sixty-two years ago today, in history's largest nonnuclear explosion, 2,000 citizens of Halifax were killed and
9,000	injured following a collision in Halifax harbour of a munitions ship bound for the front lines during World War I. Fifty-two people still receive spouse's pensions, or pensions for blindness caused by the explosion, fixed at only 71 per cent of the equivalent pensions received by combat veterans of World War I.
In view of the inadequacy of these pensions, in many cases, to meet the requirements of the recipients, and in view of the understanding long held by many that pensions would be paid as if the explosion had occurred at the front lines, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), and concurred in by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government consider bringing forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to increase pensions to those injured in the Halifax explosion to the same levels as those received by other World War I casualties.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only upon the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that exactly a week ago today the nation was treated to the spectacle on TV of members of the Saskatchewan, NDP government, led by their premier, crossing a picket line, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming):
That this House deeply deplores the anti-labour attitude of the Saskatchewan government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Even motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 must be within the jurisdictional orbit of the House of Commons.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to bring a matter of urgent and pressing necessity before the House. Due to the continuing dissatisfaction of the chicken producers over the high level of chicken import quotas recently negotiated with the American government, and the staggering economic burden it has placed on the chicken producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House continues to request that the Minister of Agriculture renegotiate the chicken import quotas agreement with the United States and, if that is not possible, takes the present levels to GATT for arbitration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXPENSES OF CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS ON GRAIN TRANSPORTATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have better luck. Yesterday, in response to an order paper question, it was revealed that a Conservative party
December 6, 1979

caucus on grain transportation spent $9,161 of public funds. This group had no members from my party, the Liberal party or the Creditiste party. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House request the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to reimburse the federal taxpayers of Canada the $9,161 of public funds it spent on partisan caucus activity.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be introduced only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) intends to improve home care services for the aged and that the additional $15 million earmarked for home care services will not meet the needs of the elderly, 1 move, seconded by the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare assure the House that additional funds will be allocated to finance home care services for the aged.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion presented by the hon. member. This motion can be presented for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only upon the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Wilbur MacDonald (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that potato farmers in eastern Canada are presently confronted by a crisis situation in which the potato market is so severely depressed that up to 20 per cent of maritime potato producers may face
Oral Questions
bankruptcy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. Gass):
That the Minister of Agriculture meet with the provincial ministers of agriculture from Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario, with a view to alleviating current depressed prices and assuring fair prices in future years through careful long-term planning in consultation with potato producers and their representative organizations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the minister announced yet another flip-flop in government policy, namely, that he would be reversing the very successful boat people matching program. The new leadership which the government is providing means that for every boat person sponsored by private citizens, our government will sponsor one less, rather than one more. 1 believe the minister and the government are caving in to the backlash. Will the hon. gentleman not acknowledge that the people have been misled by this reversal of policy? Will he not change his mind and reinstate one of the most successful programs he has established, and abandon this reactionary change?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The commitment of this government to accept 50,000 refugees by the end of 1980 remains firm. That is the Canadian commitment which will consist of privately sponsored refugees and government sponsored refugees. Twenty-one thousand of those refugees have already arrived on our shores; the balance will be coming, hopefully, within less than a year.
Rather than a "caving in", as the hon. member alleges, this is an expansion of the program because we have suddenly recognized-it was not really sudden, though it may have been sudden for the hon. member opposite-the very serious problem which exists in Kampuchea and in Thailand, where some
600,000	people are fleeing for their very lives. We want to free up sufficient funds from the existing program through a shift from government to private sponsorship. This will enable Canadian contributions of food and medical aid to be given to the unfortunate victims in Kampuchea. That is an expansion of the government's program.

December 6, 1979
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I should like to ask the minister further about this so-called expansion. In the statement this morning, the hon. gentleman announced that $1,300 would be saved by each of the non-sponsored refugees.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: About a month ago he indicated in an interview he gave to The Toronto Sun that the cost of sponsoring a refugee was $2,300. The difference between $1,300 and $2,300, $1,000, has been taken away per refugee from programs in this area. So how can he call it an expansion? If he insists on transferring it, against our views, why does he not transfer the full $2,300, instead of apparently chiselling $1,000 per refugee for some other government program?


Ronald George Atkey: It is hardly chiselling to take $1,000 or $1,300 and apply that sum to food or medical aid for a situation which the hon. member should well know is far more serious than that of the boat people. There are 2.5 million people in danger of their lives in Kampuchea, and this government is determined to do something about it.
Some lion. Members: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: It is because of the warm and generous response of the Canadian voluntary sector in sponsoring, now, 26,000 refugees that the government is able to free additional moneys to provide assistance in Kampuchea.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That warm and generous response emerged because of the government's matching program, so I want to ask the minister whether he will not consult again with those groups he told us he met with yesterday, groups that he claimed were warmly supportive of his program but which, in fact, feel abandoned and betrayed by his decision. Will he consult with them again and reconsider this reactionary policy?


Ronald George Atkey: Consultation with regard to this program has been ongoing, not only with the voluntary sector-and there were a good number of representatives in Ottawa yesterday- but also with the provincial governments which have played a major role in determining the absorbative capacity of Canada in terms of the acceptance of refugees, and in terms of the Canadian responsibility to provide food and medical aid in Kampuchea.
The hon. member seems to be unable or unwilling to see the relationship between the freeing up of moneys, the provision of governmental moneys in Kampuchea, and the continuing challenge on a one-for-one basis which exists under our program.


AID TO KAMPUCHEA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Having stated in committee today that the amount of

money to be directed to aid the starving Kampucheans will be determined indirectly by the number of Southeast Asia refugees sponsored privately into Canada, would the minister please explain at what time and for what possible reason Canada's policy on emergency aid to a starving, war-torn country should be linked to a nebulous and changing domestic immigration policy?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member opposite, unlike the other opposition party in this House, is unable to see the relationship between the two problems. There is a very deep and serious problem in Southeast Asia. Canada has a number of responses. We have a political response that is pursued by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We have a refugee resettlement response that is symbolized by the
50,000	coming to our shores before the end of 1980. We also have a humanitarian response that is reflected in terms of the food and medical aid which we will provide to that part of the world.
We have expanded the program, and we will find additional moneys to provide assistance in that part of the world along with other countries of the west, the United States, France, Australia, West Germany, Japan. Canada will do its bit.


FUNDS FOR CAMBODIAN RELIEF
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Clearly, the Secretary of State for External Affairs on November 5 made a commitment to the United Nations, that she cannot live up to, of $15 million for Cambodian relief.


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Peter A. Stollery: The government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Peter A. Stollery: Will the minister explain to the House why the same moneys originally taken from Canadian employment programs were given to the boat people, and that same money is now being taken away from the boat people and turned over to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and why the Minister of Employment and Immigration has not, instead, taken the money from the advertising budget for his department instead of moneys meant for people in dire straits in this world?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, 1 can assure hon. members opposite that that commitment was made, will be kept, and perhaps will be expanded, as a result of the program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 6, 1979


An hon. Member:: At whose expense?


Ronald George Atkey: What the hon. member opposite fails to realize is that this, being a very expensive program-and no one denies that-there are many expenses involved, whether with regard to privately sponsored refugees or publicly sponsored refugees. Those expenses will be met by this government. However, unlike the party opposite, we are not going to turn off the enthusiasm and the voluntary generosity which has come from the private sector in Canadian society to assist in a Canadian response and not merely a Canadian government response.


PLANS TO DEAL WITH POSSIBLE OIL SHORTAGE THIS WINTER
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the minister agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday in this House concerning oil supplies that, and I quote:
The National Energy Board has now, as a result of increased consumption in Canada and some other activities, come to the conclusion that there may be limited shortages this winter in Canada.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I always agree with the Prime Minister, who is always very perceptive with respect to this particular situation. The fact of the matter is that 1 indicated to the hon. member in committee this morning-and I mentioned this during the course of preceding months this fall and last summer-that we are and have been in a very tight situation in Canada. Naturally, in a tight situation there are going to be circumstances in which there could, indeed, be shortages of a temporary nature.
We are hoping that the situation will not deteriorate any further. We are continuing to take steps, on a daily basis, in consultation with importers and industry in general, to try to tide us through this winter. The Prime Minister is right: there could very well be interruptions in terms of supply in the course of this winter. But we are doing everything possible to avoid that situation and we are taking every initiative we can.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Now that we have that clear admission about the possibility of shortages, the question is what action the government is prepared to take. In that regard, 1 have a question for the minister which relates to a confidential report given to him last week by the National Energy Board, since revealed somewhat in the text of the telegram 1 have here from the board to the deputy minister of energy in Ontario, sent two days ago, in which the minister was advised of the very precarious situation in eastern Canada and that we would need an additional 2 million barrels of distillates as of the end of November.
Oral Questions
Given the fact that now diesel and home heating oil supplies are down 15 per cent in Ontario and eastern Canada over the same amount last year at this time, what specific action is the government taking to make up this shortfall so that the shortages will not, in fact, happen over the next few months?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 have indicated on previous occasions, as well, that we are in a position, after the actions taken under the previous administration, of building up the inventories in our country to an acceptable level. It is quite true that we have been striving to accomplish that over the time we have had this responsibility as the government. The fact is that I and my department, in the course of discussions with industry, have been working very closely with them to determine what can be done in the way of import requirements on the part of each of the companies, and what we can do to bring in additional product in order to meet our requirements this winter.
There have been instances, which 1 have mentioned in the House, of various companies, such as Imperial and Gulf, being able to indicate that they will be obtaining additional imports of product for us to help tide us through the winter.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The National Energy Board indicated to the minister that there were three courses of action that could be taken to try to alleviate the supply problem. The minister has alluded to one, which is increasing imports. The other was instructing refineries to convert from gasoline production to home heating production. The third was curtailing exports. It is in the latter regard that I should like to put a question to the minister.
Given the fact that we are currently exporting 75,000 barrels a day of fuel oil products, half of which are home heating oil supplies, and given this precarious supply situation, is the minister prepared, today, to recommend to the National Energy Board the cancellation or curtailment of those exports to the United States? Surely Canadian interests come first in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In fact, as the hon. member knows, the National Energy Board has Canadian interests very much in mind as part of its mandate with respect to applications for exports of product, and this is a prerequisite and a condition upon which any licence for export is undertaken. The fact of the matter is that we are canvassing a number of possibilities to increase the inventory we have. 1 have taken steps to reduce general exports in terms of crude to the United States, to supply our domestic needs.
Naturally, I will be glad to look into the matter raised by the hon. member with the National Energy Board and receive an up-to-date report from them, so that I can assure the hon. member that I am taking all steps to get us through the winter, all steps available to us in light of the situation in which we find ourselves.

December 6, 1979
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, further to the telegram the Prime Minister received yesterday from the UPA, and in view of the very serious difficulties the poultry producers are now experiencing, which will surely lead to bankruptcies in 1980, 1 should like the Minister of Agriculture to tell the House whether or not the committee that was created to study additional quotas, the renegotiation of import quotas of poultry and the redistribution of import quotas among the various poultry importers, has advised him in that regard. If not, is the committee now sitting continuously in view of the urgency of the situation across the country?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the committee is active and, indeed, it has made some recommendations to me. I have discussed those recommendations with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At this point in time-and, I think, for the foreseeable future-we will be in a position to follow those recommendations.
[ Translation]


POULTRY INDUSTRY-PROBLEM IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that production in the poultry industry requires between 11 and 13 weeks, that the enormous inventory of chicken which is accumulating will soon become worthless in the hands of the Stockers, and that the Prime Minister received yesterday a telegram from the UPA, will the minister reach a decision, as he promised he would and as a politician should, or will he remain indifferent to this problem the industry is facing both in Quebec and Ontario?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, this minister has never been at odds with the industry or at odds with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am getting a little tired of people trying to misinterpret our remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Chretien:: Arrogance.


John Wise: There is no difference between us whatsoever. On many occasions both he and I have said before the Standing Committee on Agriculture that we want to co-operate and consult on a day to day basis with people in the industry, thus

the reason for establishing this industry committee. Both of us have said that we want to be in the position in the very near future, or as soon as possible, so that the national industry can provide a sufficient quantity of product from domestic sources to supply the domestic market. To this point in time, we have achieved that. I think there is sufficient good will in the industry, and certainly there is good will between the industry and the government, to achieve that goal as soon as possible. I am quite satisfied that we have achieved that today.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY RESPECTING NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC AND POULTRY PRODUCERS' UNION
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Given the telegram forwarded by the Union des producteurs agricoles to the right hon. Prime Minister, can the minister tell us what consultations he had with the Quebec government and with UPA representatives? How can he explain that the telegram mentions that the federal government should consult the Quebec authorities on this matter, that it should reconsider its agreement with the United States and, finally, that it should immediately stop allowing supplementary quotas? More precisely, I would like to know what negotiations the minister had with his Quebec colleagues both at the government and at the UPA level.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, I communicate very regularly and quite frequently with my Quebec counterpart. If there is any question on any member's mind in the House as to the inability of the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec to communicate his feelings to the Minister of Agriculture of Canada, they should remove those doubts immediately. We have consulted with the industry.
Of course, we must recognize that the national board is made up of provincial parts. There is all kinds of input from the people within the industry in that province, like any other province. There is no difference between the position taken by the minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec on that particular issue and the position taken by the minister of agriculture for the province of Ontario. I agree with them and I support them. We are working with the industry to reach that goal as soon as possible.


FINANCE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the increase in the price of oil and gasoline by some oil companies yesterday,
December 6, 1979

is the Minister of Finance in a position to assure the House, since nobody has given any indication to the industry, that he might raise the tax on gasoline next week so that the companies will be in a position to raise their prices before the minister raises taxes?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have not given anybody any indication that there will be any increases in any taxes. That would be the last thing 1 would think of doing. If 1 was going to do it, it certainly would not be done to the oil companies. No one from the government has communicated with the oil companies about price increases.
As far as the increases of Imperial Oil are concerned, whether they are justified or not justified the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are looking into that. The fact remains that we do not have any wage or price control system at the present time, so there is no law which prevents them from raising their prices. It certainly has no connection with the budget which is to come down on Tuesday. 1 hope that budget will have many pleasant surprises.


REASON CANADA-MEXICO OIL AGREEMENT NOT RATIFIED
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the face of concern about oil supply in the immediate future, and the inaccurate and unsatisfactory answers yesterday given by the Prime Minister to my question about Mexican arrangements, will the minister now give the House a clear explanation why the Canada-Mexico oil agreement, which provides for the sale to Canada of 50,000 barrels per day in 1980 and 100,000 barrels per day in 1981, has not yet been ratified and implemented by the new Government of Canada?
Furthermore, at the earliest opportunity will he make a full statement and table the pertinent documents and records of all negotiations, if any, on this matter that have taken place with the Mexican government since May 22?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 reject out of hand any suggestion the Prime Minister was not, in fact, forthcoming. In fact, he told the hon. member and the House yesterday precisely the state of affairs in the Mexican negotiations.


Robert Knight Andras: It has not been signed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member knows that he is less than candid with the House. He knows full well that the interim agreement provided that the initial shipment of upward of
50,000	barrels per day would take place during 1980. The Mexican government is now-
Oral Questions


Miss Begin:: He said that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are having ongoing discussions with the Mexican government. We are continuing at a satisfactory rate our discussions with respect to the availability of supply by them. We are continuing those negotiations and have had exchanges of delegations and will continue to do so in the weeks ahead. The fact is that we are satisfied we will be able to bring a final agreement into place some time in the near future, that is to say, some time prior to the visit to Canada of the Mexican president.


STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS ON CANADA-MEXICO OIL AGREEMENT
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that negotiation has not been resolved, and it is now seven months later. Let me try another one with the Prime Minister.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Oh, you can do better than that.


Robert Knight Andras: Following my question about Canada-Mexico relations yesterday, will the Prime Minister confirm that it is only really within the last several days that the Canadian ambassador to Mexico has begun conversations with Mexican officials about the renewal of the invitation for President Portillo's visit to Canada, which was scheduled for May and postponed because of the election, and in fact that no formal invitation as of now-seven months later-has gone from the Prime Minister to the president of Mexico?
If that is essentially correct-which 1 am told it is-then why has there been this neglect and delay which, along with these other measures of inaction, is causing a cooling of relationships with Mexico, a very valued friend of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it should be clear that there is no cooling of relationships between Canada and Mexico. Second, it should be clear that the reason a formal invitation has not gone forward is that the President of Mexico has not yet been able to indicate to us the precise dates on which he would be free to come in May or in June.
There have been extensive conversations among officials of the foreign office of Canada and officials of the foreign office, and perhaps the office of the President of Mexico, with relation to his visit. There have been a number of conversations and discussions involving representatives of the Government of Canada and representatives of the government of Mexico regarding the bringing into effect of the oil agreement between Canada and Mexico.
As the hon. member will remember from his days in the ministry, the agreement between Canada and Mexico was one which was not specific as to delivery dates or quantities of oil
2070

December 6, 1979
Oral Questions
and, indeed, cannot be until the President of Mexico, under the regulations of his country, is in a position to determine the reserves in Mexico and, consequently, the amounts available for export to Canada or to other countries.


An hon. Member:: Ole.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State in his capacity as the minister responsible for women. In light of the report of the Department of Labour that the gap between the wages earned by men and women is widening, rather than narrowing-55.6 per cent wider in 1977 than in 1972-and that in all but two of 48 industrial occupations men earn substantially higher wages than women for the same work, what measures is the government taking to oblige the government itself and the companies doing business with the government to pay the same wages to women as to men for the same work?


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised an extremely important question in light of the disturbing report from the Department of Labour. It points out, again, the situation vis-a-vis the salary levels of women which do not remain a constant factor, and in some very important ways there has been a very serious situation with a backward step being taken in respect of the actual salary levels of men and women.
It is for this reason that two years ago Parliament passed, as the hon. member may recall, the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, which remains a principle for this government and, of course, in pursuit of which the Human Rights Commission is attempting to make it a practice. In addition, the member will know that we are very much committed to developing an over-all employment strategy for women. I have had meetings with provincial counterparts, and we hope before too long to be able to give more explicit details.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not know the difference between equal pay for equal work and equal pay for work of equal value. I was talking about equal pay for equal work, which is a basic minimum. I was not even asking for that yet elusive goal of equal pay for work of equal value: it is equal pay for equal work that we are first of all trying to seek.
1 would like, as a supplementary question, to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration, since only a few companies on government contracts-and only a very few-have signed affirmative action agreements, when the government will make it obligatory for businesses and companies with

government contracts or receiving financial assistance from the government to sign affirmative action agreements.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of assessing and evaluating the program of voluntary compliance by companies who contract with the federal government. I am not yet satisfied that the voluntary approach, with some promotion, will not work. However, I will have in my hands before the end of the calendar year a study both as to the federal contracts compliance aspect of the program and as to the affirmative action program.
1 hope, frankly, to go to cabinet either before the end of the calendar year or early in the new year with a proposal for the advancement of both the affirmative action program, not only for women but for the handicapped and natives, and a federal contract compliance program that will achieve the objectives stated by the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications and the hon. member opposite.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Justice, but since we cannot question him in this House and they will not let us in the other place to do that, I will put the question to the Prime Minister.
Has the Prime Minister received and read the telex sent to the Minister of Justice yesterday by the Council of Yukon Indians alleging that the recently expanded powers given by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Yukon government were unconstitutional and illegal, and asking the Minister of Justice to refer these matters to the Supreme Court under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, and is the Prime Minister ready to make that reference to the Supreme Court so we can settle these important legal questions quickly and not impede land claim negotiations and the building of the northern pipeline?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not complain to me about his leader's failure to name him to the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: In answer to the question he directed to me, 1 have not seen that telegram which was directed to the Minister of Justice. I suggest that if he has supplementary questions regarding the substance of the matter, he direct them to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. When is he going to start respecting our system of responsible government and appoint a minister
December 6, 1979

of justice in this House where the elected representatives of the Canadian people can question him? Does he not realize that the Minister of Justice, as Attorney General, has very special responsibilities that cannot be handled by an acting minister?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there has been a reflection cast upon the capacities of the ministers who respond in this House, a reflection which 1 think on reflection the hon. member will want to withdraw.


William Warren Allmand: Not at all.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no question at all that there is within the House a capacity for members to put questions to acting ministers in relation to those ministers who serve in the other place, in the same way as exists in relation to ministers who are absent from this House by reasons of business elsewhere. If the hon. member is telling me that he thinks it would be preferable for the Government of Canada to be constituted with inadequate representation from the province of Quebec, then that is a proposal that I reject outright.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to question the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Eugene Whelan: Because he is in the other place and he is from Ontario. I am not able to question the Minister of State for International Trade because he is not here today. If I may, I would like to question the Prime Minister.
During the discussions that took place among ministers and the Canadian-U.S. Chrysler officials, was there any discussion about a price-wage freeze of three years on the workers in Canada, and was there any discussion about the laws that affect the Canadian workers' benefits here in Canada?


Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry):: Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are very deep, very serious and they are at an advanced stage. Nothing will be done here with the Canadian position until the U.S. position is finalized. The details are well known to both parties and negotiations have been going at a very positive pace, but the fundamental issue is that nothing will be said or done here until the situation in the United States is clear to us.
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry. I want to ask whether he will keep in mind, and remind his colleagues, that in any further discussions the workers themselves should be informed about what is going to be done either for them or to them.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the very concern of this government for the workers is the reason we are in these negotiations with Chrysler. This time we are going to insist that there be staying power in the Chrysler organization before we get involved in permanent commitments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. If, as I hope, the $1 billion Chrysler expansion takes place in Canada with federal government assistance, no doubt there will be enough jobs in Windsor, the principal site of Chrysler Canada production, in the long run; but in the short run there is a serious unemployment situation, with new lay-offs taking place daily, so that Windsor has probably the highest rate of unemployment in the industrialized part of the country but is not eligible for assistance under the Canada Works program. May I ask the minister what plans the government has to deal with the continuing lay-offs in the automotive industry?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the lay-offs in the automotive industry is, of course, of great concern to this government. We are monitoring very closely the situation in Windsor and in other locations. I have said on a number of occasions in this House that Canada Manpower consultative services are available in lay-off situations which provide committees and consultative services in terms of the services that can be made available to individual workers, whether that is unemployment insurance or, more important, whether retraining opportunities are available, or work-sharing, or other programs within the purview of my particular department.
As the hon. member knows, there will be a full exposition of the government's employment strategy next week, first, as part of the budget debate and subsequent to that, of course, in the context of the budget debate.

December 6, 1979
Oral Questions INTERNATIONAL TRADE


CHRYSLER CANADA-ACTION TO ENSURE VIABILITY OF CORPORATION AND MAINTAIN CANADIAN JOBS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry has said that no decision on aid to Chrysler Canada will be made until there is a decision by the United States Congress. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will not change that attitude, in view of the fact that opinion in the Congress is sharply divided on helping Chrysler U.S. and a favourable decision announced, at least in principle, to help Chrysler Canada could well tilt the balance in the Congress in favour of helping Chrysler U.S.
This is essential in order to ensure the viability of Chrysler Canada, since it exports some 70 per cent of its production to the United States. If the Prime Minister is really interested in maintaining jobs in Canada, surely he will change his position. I ask him if he is going to do that today.


Charles Joseph Clark: l will try to be brief in answering that question, Mr. Speaker, which is a repetition of one put yesterday. I will certainly indicate, as 1 did yesterday, that if an arrangement is worked out between the United States and Chrysler, we will be prepared to consider an arrangement between Canada and Chrysler. But certainly we are not going to signal our agreement to an arrangement whose details we cannot know.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: You must know.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: A supplementary question to the Prime Minster, Mr. Speaker. Does he not realize that if there is not a favourable decision in the U.S. Congress to help Chrysler U.S., then the viability of Chrysler Canada and its affiliates, even with support from the federal government, will be very questionable? Does he not see the common sense of indicating a decision in principle now, in order to make sure that Chrysler Canada will have an outlet for production in the United States? Does he not see this obvious point?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is precisely that obvious point that we have been arguing, that it is not going to be possible for the Government of Canada to come to any arrangement with Chrysler until we know that there is a firm arrangement in relation to Chrysler and the United States government-to the U.S. government and the parent corporation. We have indicated in this House that if there is such an agreement, we would agree in principle to working out the details of an arrangement in Canada.


John Carr Munro: That is not what you said yesterday.


ORGANIZED LABOUR
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Could he tell the House and the country where he and his officials stand with regard to the studies which I believe have been undertaken in the fishing industry for the organization of the fishermen on the east coast and the west coast into labour unions?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under serious consideration for some time. As I understand it, in 1977 a decision was made with respect to the collective bargaining rights of fishermen under part V of the Canada Labour Code. It was found that they did not have any, and accordingly representations were made and hearings were held with the fishermen and with the industry.
1 understand there have been consultations with the provinces because of the question of jurisdiction. Interdepartmental studies have been undertaken. I hope to have a report in the very near future, when I will advise the hon. member of what action will be taken.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for International Trade, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement made by the president of the Bombardier company that the "Buy America" program will compel that company to make emergency plans, close its Quebec plant and move to the United States, can the Prime Minister announce today in this House the specific steps which he intends to take to guarantee the survival and development of that important industry in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot do so today. However, I will speak to the minister involved and other officials of the department to see if there are some plans and if it would be possible for me or another minister to announce them in the House or elsewhere as soon as possible.
December 6, 1979


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
On November 16, in reply to a question 1 put to him in the House about the steps he intends to take to shorten the delays which have caused departmental services to become bogged down, and implementing the recommendations of the Heald, Sinclair, Chouinard commission, the minister told me he expected the report of the task force around November 25 or 26. Can the minister tell us today whether or not he has received that report and, if so, whether he has taken the necessary steps to increase staff, improve training procedures and make sure that the necessary equipment is now available in order to shorten the delays in which the Gens de fair are now trapped?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 received the report in the week of November 27 and 1 have accepted it. It is now the subject of a proposal which is going before cabinet. I am confident that the hon. member will be satisfied with the position we are taking. The implementation is going on. I have to tell him, though, that the speed of the implementation process is contingent upon recruitment, training and certification. Having regard to all those conditions, the schedule for implementation will be taken before cabinet in the next week or so. 1 shall be able to report in more detail after that date.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuii):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Is he aware that yesterday and the day before, and today in certain places in Canada, mainly in Sault Ste. Marie, some Bell Canada employees went on strike? Whether this strike is legal or not, can the minister tell us if the conciliator who has been designated, Mr. Tremblay, has already submitted to him his conciliation report and if that report has indeed been submitted to him, when does the minister intend to make the strike legal?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will not answer the question of whether I think the strike is legal or not. 1 think the hon. member knows that under the provisions of the Code, the Canada Labour Relations Board is the proper forum to determine whether any disruption-and 1 call it a disruption-is illegal.
As far as the conciliation commission report is concerned, I understand that it will be in my hands, with the necessary
Oral Questions
recommendations which I hope will be satisfactory and will lead to a just settlement, by the middle of December. At that time we hope hon. members will accept the report. 1 can also advise the hon. member that the company has brought before the board a procedure regarding cease and desist with respect to disruptions that are taking place right now. It is my understanding that this will be heard tomorrow.


TREMBLAY REPORT-WORKERS' RIGHT TO STRIKE WITHOUT BEING SUSPENDED
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? I do not know if the minister misunderstood me, but I did not ask for legal advice and I would never ask a lawyer to settle a labour dispute. I am more interested in the fact that we are dealing here with employees who are mostly women and who received a 2.8 per cent wage increase back in 1977, and that nobody seems to care about them. Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to tell us if he has reached a decision regarding the implication of the Tremblay report, and whether or not he has decided to grant them the right to strike and, if so, what he intends to do to make sure that the employees who will get it can resort to it without fear of suspension by their employers.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just do not understand, Mr. Speaker, why the hon. member does not understand the procedure under the collective bargaining process, and in particular part V. As I indicated to him, the collective bargaining process calls for the intervention of a conciliation commissioner. He can only do what he is allowed to do under the law; that is, when a settlement has not been reached, he can prepare a report and make recommendations for settlement. Until the report reaches my desk and until it is given to the parties involved, the hon. member knows that any contravention of the process within part V of the act calls for no disruption.
The hon. member will have to be patient. Unfortunately, it is a serious matter. I am very concerned, not only about the women involved but about the men involved and the workers in general. We have to wait until we receive the report of the conciliation commissioner, Mr. Tremblay, in terms of the recommendations and, hopefully-I say "hopefully"-the parties involved will accept the recommendations that will be put before them.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Given the

December 6, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde
fact that in the last ten days or so the major chartered banks have increased their charges for bank servicing, including the charge for writing a cheque, the charge for making an entry on current accounts, the certification of cheques and the rental of safety deposit boxes, and given the fact that the chartered banks have shown all-time high profits, with increases of more than 20 per cent over the same period last year, would the minister himself, or one of his colleagues who deals more directly with the banks, make representations to the banks that they ought not to be increasing these charges when their profits are so high?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that question would be more effectively, and certainly more properly, answered by the Minister of Finance.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance-perhaps he cannot answer today-to look at the increases in bank chargeSjto customers which the banks have recently announced? In light of their very substantial-1 do not want to use the word "exorbitant"-increase in profits, would the minister make representations to the effect that they should give some consideration to the needs of their customers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, some banks have increased profits, and one bank we know has had reduced profits. It is very difficult to generalize. These things also go in cycles. The quarter before last their revenues were down. This quarter the revenues were up because of the spread. 1 will certainly communicate to the banks my desire that they charge as little as possible to their customers, and that they operate in every case on a very thin margin.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have several notices of questions of privilege. I have received notices from the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell).


MR. LALONDE-INQUIRY WHY NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REPORT NOT PRESENTED
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, not only do I raise one question of privilege but, following developments that have occurred since two o'clock this afternoon and in light of a recent report concerning a press conference to be held this afternoon by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), I will have a second question of privilege. But I will submit the first one now and, with your permission, I will come back to the second one later.
As to the first question of privilege, it relates first to the statement made in the House yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), as reported on page 2030 of Hansard, and I quote:
To come to the last question, the National Energy Board has now, as a result of increased consumption in Canada and some other activities, come to the conclusion that there may be limited shortages this winter in Canada.
This morning, we were supposed to receive from the National Energy Board a report which was to be made public and available to all members on the oil supply situation in Canada and especially in eastern Canada during the month of November. This morning the minister informed the committee that the report would be made public only in a few days. I have solid proof that the report was indeed ready to be made public this morning, but that the board held it back because its content was at odds with the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday; the board decided to keep the report in order to change it, to doctor it and to make it conform to the views expressed yesterday in the House by the right hon. Prime Minister.
It seems to be, Mr. Speaker, that this is grounds for a question of privilege, because there is an indirect assault on the independence of an agency such as the National Energy Board which, because it has been attributed statements by the right hon. Prime Minister, is now forced to amend the content of its report. I do not want to hold up the work of the House unduly, Mr. Speaker. However, 1 draw your attention to this matter which obviously concerns the privileges of members and I ask the minister to make public immediately the exact report that was prepared by the National Energy Board, and not the version that was modified and cooked to agree with yesterday's statements by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, rarely has such a false and irresponsible accusation been made in the House of Commons by a member of Parliament, a Privy Concillor, a member well acquainted not only with the rules of the House of Commons, but also with the rules concerning the autonomy of agencies such as the National Energy Board. I can indicate to the House and to the hon. member that the accusation the member made is unfounded and totally false. No evidence was given because the hon. member has no proof and the accusation is false. 1 hope the hon. member can now respect the independence of the National Energy Board and have the courage to say to the House of Commons that he erred and made a false and irresponsible accusation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter is obviously one of disagreement and not one of procedure.

December 6, 1979


MR. KNOWLES-APPRECIATION EXPRESSED TO PRIME MINISTER FOR HOSTING TESTIMONIAL DINNER FOR HON. PAUL MARTIN
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is in a totally different vein, but it does relate to a matter concerning which I feel there should be something on the records of this House.
If 1 may speak as a member of a third party who can therefore be objective about it, I am sure that many members would agree with me that a word of appreciation should be expressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) for the gracious way in which he hosted a dinner last night as a testimonial to our friend, the Hon. Paul Martin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The generosity of spirit of the Prime Minister was something that we all appreciated. 1 know that our friend Paul and his friends were gratified, and to all of us it was a unique parliamentary event.
I express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that if there are records of the speeches either in written form or on tapes, they might be preserved in the National Archives or in the Library. As 1 say, it was a unique occasion and 1 felt that it should be noted on the records of Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. ALLMAND-MINISTERS NOT MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF COMMONS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, during the question period when the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) was answering my questions with respect to the appointment of ministers to answer questions in this House, the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge that in our system of responsible government, senior ministers-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Warren Allmand: -and especially the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada and the senior law officer of the Crown, should be elected to sit in the House of Commons. That is our system.
It is true that it is customary to appoint ministers in the Senate to be leaders of the Senate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace will know that he will have to identify the nature of his question of privilege to me. If it is simply a grievance that ministers of the Crown sit outside of the House of Commons, he will know that that is a repetition of previous practices of the House, and while it may be an annoyance and a matter of commentary, it does not constitute a procedural problem in which the Chair can be expected to intervene. If he has some special nature of the matter which does bring it within the orbit of privilege, I will be glad to hear it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the special aspect that I would argue strongly for is that the Minister of Justice, who is the
Point of Order-Mr. Lalonde
Attorney General of Canada, has very special responsibilities in the laying of legal actions and so on which cannot be answered for by any other minister, because he is sworn in as Attorney General and Minister of Justice. I would argue that only he and not the ministers who are designated can answer these questions. In our parliamentary system of responsible government, it is not correct for such a procedure to continue. 1 can understand an Acting Minister of Justice sitting in the Senate on a temporary basis, but this situation is completely against our system of responsible government. There has been an opportunity in Prince Albert and in Newfoundland for that minister to run in an election and be elected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I would remind the hon. member that he is raising a matter which he considers to be a grievance. That may be so, and it may be an annoyance upon which he may make a comment, as he has done. 1 cannot bring the matter within the realm of procedure. It is the right of the government, and it is in keeping with previous parliamentary practice, whether it be the Minister of Justice or, as in a previous case, the Minister of National Revenue, to have ministers who sit outside the House for a period of time. There is no necessity, in fact, that all the ministers even be members of the House of Commons or the Senate. Therefore, I am not able to act on procedural grounds on the hon. member's case.


MRS. MITCHELL-ALLEGED MISUSE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN AID
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is with regard to the statements made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) this afternoon when he misrepresented the position of the New Democratic Party concerning the misuse of immigration funds for foreign aid to Kampuchea. The minister stated in this House today that my party agreed with his decision, made in collusion with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald), whereby they would take $10 million, which was originally promised as foreign aid to Kampuchea, from immigrant services that had been allocated for Vietnamese refugee programs.
We object to that because we disagree strongly with the position of the Conservative party and in particular the two ministers. We feel that there has been a misuse of funds and a breach of faith both with the United Nations and the private sponsoring groups. We feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should contribute the $10 million to Kampuchea, but that this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has been given an opportunity to indicate the areas in which she departs from the representation made by the minister today during the question period. That point has now been made by the hon. member in her intervention. I do not think that I ought to allow her to go on and give a full expose of her party's position on this particular problem.

December 6, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Lalonde POINTS OF ORDER


MR. LALONDE-PROPOSED STATEMENT ON GAS EXPORTS BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with consultations that took place yesterday between the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker), members of our party and the other parties in the House. It is with regard to a statement which was to be made in this House at six o'clock by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
My party agreed to that arrangement, and now we have heard that the minister instead intends to call a press conference at the end of the day after the markets have closed in order to announce certain decisions concerning gas exports to the United States. With respect to this matter, I have a motion that I would like to introduce, because this arrangement implied that the minister would make-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. How can I be asked to adjudicate on something that may or may not happen later in the day?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could clear up the difficulty. The hon. member is either mischievous or just plain mistaken.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a mischievous mistake.


Walter David Baker: Arrangements were made with my colleague, the opposition House leader, for us to revert to statements by ministers when we get to motions at six o'clock, after reverting to the tabling of documents. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has a document which he wishes to table and upon which he wishes to make a statement. Not only have the arrangements between my friend and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) proceeded in that manner, but we indicated that we would give an advance notice of two hours to the other parties and groups which are interested in this matter.
I do not know what has possessed the hon. member, but he is completely mistaken.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With regard to the ministers making statements, we have not called ministerial statements or motions. Perhaps we should wait until we reach that point before procedural arguments are raised as to whether or not anything will take place. We have not come to routine proceedings, and I cannot adjudicate on the actions of a minister during routine proceedings until we come to them.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it was alleged that I was making a mischievous statement. The basis for making my statement is simply the declaration of the minister in the energy committee this morning. Members of both sides of the House were present when the minister said he had no intention of making a

statement in the House today, that he had not heard anything about the matter. Members who were present at the committee can testify to that. If the government cannot get its act together, it should not be surprised when we get the wrong information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. How can I entertain argument about what a minister will do during routine proceedings when we have not come to routine proceedings?


MR. ALEXANDER-RELEASE OF RAY REPORT ON EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), I believe, made reference to the wage gap report which was prepared by Dr. Ratna Ray, director of the Women's Bureau-and I congratulate them on their excellent work. There may be the misconception that the report is now ready. It is not ready at this point. I am not questioning how the hon. member received the report, but it will not be ready for general distribution to the public, as I understand it, until the first week of January.
1 have also been advised that we may be able to get a limited number of reports to hon. members in the very near future. I merely wanted to inform the House, before there is a great run on the department, that we will not be in a position to release the full report until the first week of January.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the government House leader has any idea what the House business will be for the next week.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Today, of course, is an allotted day to the hon. member's party. The motion is in the name of the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, and we look forward to it with great anticipation. Tomorrow we continue with the consideration of Bill C-20 after disposal of the motion under Standing Order 75C, of which I gave notice yesterday.
On Monday we will be moving into Committee of the Whole and, hopefully, all matters with respect to the committee stage will be disposed of at 9.45 p.m. I say hopefully because it is subject to the will of the House. On Tuesday it is my intention to continue with Bill C-20 during the afternoon. Of course, at eight o'clock in the evening of Tuesday, December 11, the Minister of Finance will be introducing his budget.
At the moment, and so I can give some notice to my friend, it is my intention to call Bill C-20 for third reading next Wednesday. I will be seeking an arrangement with the other House leaders with respect to the quick disposition of Bill C-20. It is mv intention to call the main estimates on Thurs-
December 6, 1979

day, December 13. Friday, December 14, will likely be the first day of the budget debate. Of course, I will be in close consultation with the other House leaders on that matter.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the veterans bill is on the order paper to be introduced today. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is here to do that. I would like to have a chat with the other House leaders, either formally or informally, with respect to how we might dispose of that matter before we recess for Christmas. 1 recognize that there is, indeed, a tight schedule between now and what would be the anticipated adjournment debate. To accommodate the work of the House and the work of all members, 1 want to assure them that 1 am quite willing to accommodate them in terms of extending the hours of the House of Commons so that their reasonable rights will be satisfied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say how glad I am that we have reached the point at which a bill respecting veterans is on the order paper and will be introduced within the next few minutes. I might say to the government House leader that once that bill has received first reading and has been printed and we have had a chance to look at it, we shall be glad to assess the possibility of dealing with it expeditiously.
Perhaps I could take this occasion to ask the hon. gentleman about two other possible pieces of legislation. In view of the fact that a lengthy and very strong telegram has been sent to the Prime Minister within the last day or so regarding Heritage Day, and in view of the fact that the date foreseen for such a holiday is not far off-the third Monday in February-will the government consider legislation on that subject before we reach February of 1980?
There is one other question I should like to ask. This is a question which always raises my popularity in the House of Commons, but one gets used to that. In view of the fact that Mr. Alfred Hales, as a commissioner, is studying the question of the pay and other benefits that go with being a member of Parliament, has the government given any consideration to deferring the automatic pay and allowance increases in January until a report is received from Mr. Hales outlining what he thinks our situation should be?


Walter David Baker: With respect to Heritage Day, the government is not contemplating any legislation with respect to that proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: 1 feel I should be very candid and direct with the hon. member. With respect to the question of deferring the automatic escalation, I think it would be unwise for us to anticipate in either direction what Mr. Hales is doing, given his knowledge of parliamentary affairs. I am satisfied it would be quite improper for us-and I have considered the matter-to anticipate in any way whatsoever what his report might say. I believe it would be more appropri-
Business of the House
ate to allow the commissioner to do his work; he might have certain views, as we all know, with respect to the rate of escalation, special allowances for members and a whole host of things. We have no indication of when he is going to report and 1 feel it would be quite inappropriate to undercut the work of the commissioner, a very distinguished Canadian whose appointment, 1 know, has the support of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Yvon Pinard: I would like to have only one clarification concerning the order of business just given by the leader of the government in the House. Are we to understand that he has the firm intention of completing third reading of Bill C-20 before the debate on the budget can be allowed to start?


Walter David Baker: Well, Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal in the human breast. I have always been a hopeful and optimistic person and I trust I have always been found to be reasonable. I indicated that I wanted to discuss the question of arranging appropriately the business of the House with respect to completing the legislative program to the extent we have given notice it should be completed with respect to Bill C-20, the property tax credit bill, and, of course, the opposition has some feelings with respect to examining the estimates of the government. 1 recognize that; 1 am prepared to allow that to happen and I am not going to hold back in any way. It is a matter we would like to discuss.


Mr. Harquail:: By way of a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which might very well be a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want a new point to be raised. I am trying to conclude the regular Thursday question about House business.


Maurice James Harquail: I seek clarification from you, sir, with respect to the work we have to do in this House arising from the question which was raised about accountability. Outside the government's right to appoint ministers of the cabinet, I should like to know from you, sir, your interpretation and ruling as to our right as members of the House, in terms of the accountability of ministers, to be able to direct questions to such ministers as the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is returning to the subject raised by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace on which I have already ruled.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the House leader. If I understood him correctly, he said that next Thursday we would start on the estimates. He is probably aware that the committee on miscellaneous estimates did vote negatively on the estimates for the Treasury Board, votes 1,5, 10, 15 and 20. Does he intend to introduce a
2078

December 6, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde
motion reinstating those votes before we proceed to the general study of the estimates?


Walter David Baker: 1 am aware of what happened in the miscellaneous estimates committee and I want to assure the hon. member that the problem is very much within my contemplation. When I have resolved it I shall be speaking to the hon. gentleman and asking for his assistance.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde), in raising a question of privilege, referred to some remarks made this morning by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and stated as a fact that the minister had indicated that neither he nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) would be making a statement on the energy and gas supply report which would be coming out today. Mr. Speaker, I was at that meeting and that is most assuredly not what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said. I will grant the possibility that the hon. member for Outremont is incorrect as opposed to mischievous. He frequently is incorrect. But if he is mischievous, it might well be a violation of the privileges of this House for a member to stand up and state categorically as a fact that certain information was transferred in the committee this morning whereas it certainly was not transferred.


An hon. Member:: What did he say?


Harvie Andre: The question put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources by the hon. member for Outremont was whether the minister would have anything to say about this question of hypothetical shortages of heating oil in eastern Canada this year, and the minister said no, he would not be making a statement on that today, nor was he aware whether the Prime Minister would be making one. That is what was said this morning and it is quite different from what the former minister inaccurately told the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have no intention of prolonging an argument which relates to testimony given in a standing committee. The record there will speak for itself in any case. Whether or not the minister intends to make a statement today is the subject at issue, and I presume that will be adequately covered during routine proceedings if, once again, we can be permitted to reach them.


Mr. McKenzie:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To assist you to clear up this constant confusion in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should just like to move along to routine proceedings and committee reports. I am grateful for the offer of assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Second report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Neil.
Second report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. McKnight.
[Editor's note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I now table in both official languages copies of budget-related paper entitled "The Government of Canada Tax Expenditure Account", the purpose of which is to make the public and this House aware of who is benefiting, and to what extent, through little known tax preferences. This is part of the process of opening up the budgetary process and letting the public know what has been happening for the last ten years.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get your attention to rise on a matter of order. Two days ago I made my maiden speech in this House of Commons during the private members' hour. The subject of debate was an amendment to part IV of the Canada Labour Code in a private members' bill introduced by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Prior to my participation in that debate I read the bill and sought expert advice from officials within this government as to the consequences of that bill if we were to approve it in principle and then approve its passage.
December 6, 1979

During the course of that debate I drew to the attention of the hon. member for Nickel Belt that one of the repercussions of this House's accepting that principle and that wording was a possible harmful effect on the travelling public and on the employees who work on aeroplanes, trains and ships. 1 draw your attention to page 2006 of Hansard. The hon. member for Nickel Belt rose on a point of order and said the following:
-I think the hon. member is deliberately trying to give the wrong impression to this House.
Immediately after that I responded as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that at some appropriate time the hon. member opposite would withdraw the word "deliberate". I am not sure that it fits into the traditions of this House.
I have given the hon. member 48 hours. I told him this morning that in the absence of an initiative on his part I would attempt to raise this matter on a point of order. I draw this to your attention and would like a ruling.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I would like to withdraw the word "deliberate" and replace it with "stupid".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) intervened to seek the withdrawal of the language. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has withdrawn it, and I believe that that closes the matter procedurally.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the disagreement which occurred as to what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said, there have in fact been the discussions to which I alluded, and pursuant to the discussions and after consulting my colleagues, the other House leaders, I would like to move, with the unanimous consent of the House:
That the House revert to statements by ministers at 6 p.m. or upon return from the giving of royal assent to certain bills this day, and that the hours of the House be extended to allow members sufficient time to respond to this statement pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 15(3).
I should inform the House that at the same time the minister will be tabling documents, and we will want to revert to that part of the day's proceedings as well.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. Is there a disposition to give consent to put this motion and to make this order now rather than leaving it until later today? Does the minister have consent to put the motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. In accordance with the terms just alluded to by the President of the Privy Council, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Official Languages


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-28, to amend the Pension Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
December 6, 1979-The President of Privy Council
That a special joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1978, tabled Tuesday, February 20, 1979 (Sessional Paper No. 304-1/301) and the report of the Official Languages Commissioner for 1979 once it has been tabled in the House of Commons;
That nine members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members on the part of this House on the special joint committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee be empowered to retain professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required;
That a quorum of the committee be four members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when three members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that that House do unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.

December 6, 1979
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 87, 343, 469, 480, 555, 563, 608 and 648.


JUSTICE-PROJECTS IN RIMOUSKI
Mr. Allard: 1.	Since 1975, did the Department of Justice finance projects in the constituency of Rimouski and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


MR. HUGH R. HART-BROCKVILLE
Mr. Cossitt: Did Brockville solicitor, Mr. Hugh R. Hart, receive more payments of public funds from the government than any other Brockville solicitor over the past five years and, if so, for what reasons?


Robert Jarvis: In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned, the reply to the first part of the question is yes. The reply to the second part of the question is: "Mr. Hart did more legal work for the government than any other Brockville solicitor over the past five years."


NATIONAL CAPITAL FUND
Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was transferred to the National Capital fund?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: The amount transferred to the National Capital fund in each of the past five fiscal years was as follows:
1977-1978
1975-1976

32.000.	000
30.000.	000
23.080.000


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the National Capital fund?


Erik Nielsen: The balance outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the National Capital fund as at March 31 of the last five fiscal years was as follows:
1977-1978
1975-1976


$34,500,000 37,750,000 18,000,000 7,000,000 12,000,000 SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Corbett: 1.	What was the number of cases the Department of Justice instigated against small businesses in the fiscal year (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78?
2.	What was the (a) number of favourable judgements for small businesses (b) total cost on the part of the government (c) average cost per case (d) number of cases settled out of court favourable to the government?


Robert Jarvis: We regret we cannot answer this question as stated. Even with clarification of the terms, a reply would involve extensive research which in time and cost would be prohibitive.


FEDERALISM-PARTI QUEBECOIS
Mr. Cossitt: Did the former Prime Minister or anyone else in the former government commission a study in regard to federalism vs. the Parti Quebecois and, if so (a) on what date and specifically was it just after the 1976 electoral victory of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec (b) how many government departments and agencies supplied information for the study (c) what are the names of all members of the Privy Council staff or the former Prime Minister's Office staff who were engaged in the work (d) what is the estimated total cost of the study (e) specifically, did the study claim that officials of the former government were unaware of "general cultural, social and political" matters in Quebec (f) is the report consistent with the policy of the present government and, if not, for what reason?


Robert Jarvis: No. (a) to (f) Not applicable.


ONTARIO-QUEBEC BORDER-GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Cossitt: Did the government prior to May 22, 1979, follow a policy of moving government departments, branches, etc., across the Ottawa River and, if so, as a means to save money, did the government give consideration to proposing an amendment to the existing Ontario-Quebec border whereby the existing points of entry to Quebec would be extended across the Ottawa River in a bulging line, to encompass wherever necessary, all government buildings presently in the City of Ottawa, including Parliament Hill?


Mr. John Bosley (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: In so far as this government is concerned, it has no knowledge as to whether the previous Ministry considered a course of action which would have as a consequence the possible outcome anticipated in your question.
December 6, 1979


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the current percentage drug royalty fee to the original patent holder under the compulsory licensing provisions in the pharmaceutical industry?
2.	Has the percentage changed in the past ten years?
3.	What is the comparable percentage in Great Britain?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: 1. Four per cent.
2.	No.
3.	There is no comparable percentage in Great Britain, since the party that corresponds roughly to the compulsory licensees under the Canadian law, is the British Government itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: On behalf of the unemployed workers of Riviere-Verle in northwestern New Brunswick 1 have the honour to present a petition dealing with the adverse effects of certain provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act which were promulgated by the new government on July 1, 1979. There are 522 names on this petition which 1 have examined and which appears to meet the requirements of our Standing Orders. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 request that, after due examination by the clerk, it be referred to our Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day, may 1 advise the House that in keeping with a practice which we have encouraged and which I think has been to the benefit of all hon. members in the past, the supply bill which will be considered by the House in the ordinary way later this day has been prepared, and it has been our recent practice to distribute it to hon. members earlier in the day in order that they might not be caught by surprise by the distribution of the bill at ten o'clock later on this evening.
1 have sufficient copies of the bill, and 1 would encourage their distribution if the House agrees that it be distributed this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Employment Strategy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Francis Fox (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes) moved:: That this House deplores the complete inaction of the government, after six months in office, with regard to the creation of jobs, regrets the inhumane cutbacks in the Canada Works program that have eliminated hundreds of communities across Canada that have been suffering from high levels of unemployment and condemns the government for its failure to date to bring forward a comprehensive employment strategy for the coming year.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will note that not later than 9.45 p.m. this evening, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1 )(k), proceedings on this motion shall expire in accordance with that order and also with Standing Order 58(10).


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago during question period in the House, we celebrated-of course "celebrated" may not be the right word because this is certainly not cause for celebration throughout the country-let us say therefore that we noted the first six months in power of our colleagues on the other side of the House. Mr. Speaker, we would have liked on that occasion to be able to tell members opposite, and more especially the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey), that they had done a good job.
Unfortunately, the only thing we have seen in the last six months has been nearly complete inaction. This is why, Mr. Speaker, after six months of this government, after six months of having the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration on the job, we would like to tell him that he has yet to present to the House and to the Canadian people an employment strategy for the forthcoming months.
Mr. Speaker, it is not normal to wait until just before Christmas, until mid-December, until snow is coming down throughout the country, to present an employment strategy for the current year. This year is coming to an end and we are entitled to ask the minister to tell us about his plans not only for the forthcoming months, but more important, for next summer and next fall.
The minister has thrown away six months of lead time that was given to him by the previous government. He inherited a position where job creation was strong, where we led most of our trading partners in the area of job creation. The minister benefited from a situation where the rate of unemployment dropped for 14 consecutive months in this country. He inherited a situation where the economy was still strong, in spite of the fact that there were turnarounds on the horizon, turn-

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
arounds caused in many instances by events occurring outside our borders. The economic climate has deteriorated a great deal, and in spite of that his response has continued to be to do nothing. Since taking office the first response of the minister, whose responsibility it is to try to create employment in this country, in his first interviews on television, was to say that he thought his position within the cabinet was one of creating "jobs, jobs, jobs". These were the words he used. Since that time we have seen no concrete measures or steps but we have heard speeches and a lot of rhetoric, in spite of the fact that the economic climate has indeed changed and requires new steps to be taken to stimulate the economy and create employment in this country.
The minister knows full well that there is a recession in the United States. Surely he knows, as do his advisers, that the recession in the United States will have deeply-felt repercussions on the Canadian economy. When our major trading partner goes into a state of slow growth, it is evident that we will be trading less with them and that there will be grave repercussions in the factories, in industry and in commerce in general throughout this country with the consequent loss of jobs.
That is not the only thing, Mr. Speaker. There have also been successive increases in interest rates. The bank rate, as we all know, has now climbed to 14 per cent. Prime rates charged by the chartered banks to their best industrial customers have now climbed to 15 per cent, putting businessmen in a precarious position. Plant closures, which have been brought to the minister's attention time and time again, have begun to occur, with many of the people involved pointing directly to the high interest rates subscribed to by this government as the main cause of those closings. We also hear about unfortunate problems encountered by the employees of Chrysler in the Windsor area and the employees of ITT in northern Quebec. We hear of the problems in shipyards, and there is a general situation of slow growth in the country. But the minister, whose main responsibility it is to bring about job creation and employment opportunities in this country, does nothing.
What about the most important policy direction of this government? The most important policy direction of this government is to raise oil prices to 90 per cent of the Chicago price. We all know that while the domestic price of oil in Toronto today is around SI5.63 a barrel, the Chicago price j>y 1985 will be around $43.46, according to figures published by the minister's colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and it will be reaching about $62.81 by 1990, which will be slightly higher than the international price.
One of the stated objectives of this government is to raise the domestic price of oil slightly above the international price, thus taking away one of the main advantages that industry, trade and commerce has in this country in dealing with competitors outside of our borders. Where does the Minister of Employment and Immigration stand on this question? We have not heard him say anything about this matter. We have not heard him take a stand against the scandalous increases in

the price of oil, despite the fact that the minister knows full well that these increases will have dire consequences on our economy.
1 am not quite sure whether the minister has actually examined the effect which such policies will have on employment in this country. Perhaps 1 could quote to him the already well-known study that has been done on the economic impact of oil prices, because the minister tells me his department does not do any studies on the economic impact on the country of changes in the interest rate or increases in the oil price; he leaves that to the Department of Finance, although 1 would expect him to act on that and bring forward new policies when such drastic changes in the economic picture of the country are taking place.
Let us look at what the Conservative Premier of Ontario is telling the Minister of Employment and Immigration through his colleague, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). He is telling him that these increases in the price of oil will have a drastic effect on the Canadian economy, particularly on the job-creation sector in Canada.


An hon. Member:: What do the other nine say?


Francis Fox: Let us stick for the moment with the Premier of Ontario. If the hon. member thinks that increases in oil prices will increase job creation in Canada, 1 should like him to quote the name of the economist who said that. So far as the Conservative government of Ontario is concerned, their main conclusion is that by the end of 1981 consumer prices will be 4.5 per cent higher. In the area of job creation there will be 137,000 fewer jobs, which is probably a greater destruction of jobs during the course of the possible tenure of the minister than the total number of jobs he will create in that period of time. The way things are going now, the minister should be concerned he will end up with fewer jobs by 1981 than we would have had without this. By the end of 1981 we are talking about 137,000 fewer jobs in this country. We are talking about a real gross national product of 2 per cent less, if these oil price increases are indeed brought forward by this government, than would be the case.
Let me digress for one moment to say that not only is the government talking about slowing down the economy and doing it in a purposeful fashion by increasing the price of oil, but they are also talking about taking 30 cents a gallon out of the pocket of every car owner in this country. When the Prime Minister speaks about qn excise tax of 30 cents a gallon, he is also telling us he will; take around $2.8 billion out of the pockets; of car owners 'across the country, and that too will have a significant impact on job creation.
As I (have said, we hqve heard speeches today. From the beginning of his mandat^ this summer, the minister has promised us a number of iniiiatives in the job-creation field. He spoke about youth employment. He told us he will be seeing some of these initiatives taking place in the early fall. It is almost early winter and we have yet to see them. To date the only thing he has actually done has been to go the other way. Not only has he not created jobs; he has decided, in a cold
December 6, 1979

blooded fashion, to decrease the amount of money available in this country for job-creation purposes. His response to date has been to cut back on the Canada Works program and make cutbacks in the LEDA program.
The minister will tell me that what he is interested in doing is creating permanent jobs, and I agree with him. I too am interested in creating permanent jobs. But what the minister is saying is that he can do away with some of this temporary job creation, and what I am telling the minister is that in a country like Canada where there is a cyclical slowdown in the economy, what he is doing really is telling people that they will be on unemployment insurance or welfare during the winter months instead of being able to benefit from programs such as Canada Works. Instead of being able to fulfil strong local community objectives and needs, they will be collecting unemployment insurance cheques, in spite of the fact that these people would much rather work.
1 do not want to insist only on increased use of the Canada Works program because I am reminded that our own employment strategy a year ago included a number of initiatives which, from reading the minister's speeches, I see he will try to wrap up and put a ribbon on, perhaps because it is Christmas and time to deliver a new package to the Canadian public. When I look at the employment strategy which was brought down in September of 1978 by the Hon. Bud Cullen, I see that already at that time there was under way an employment tax credit program of $106 million. 1 see also that there was a summer youth employment program of $116 million, there were year-round youth employment measures of $109.7 million, there was a JET program in existence at the time, there was the Canada Works program and a skilled training program of $101.5 million. In this sense 1 hope the minister will be continuing the initiatives of his predecessor in the skilled training area because I really think this is one of the most important areas with which we have to be involved in the years to come.
I have with me a copy of the sixteenth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. One of their recommendations touches upon labour market policies. It hits home in one of the most important areas of job creation in Canada, and that is shortages of skilled manpower. It is one thing to create jobs in the immediate future, and it is one thing to try and create temporary jobs to get over periods of high unemployment. But it is another thing to deal with skilled shortages, something to which the previous government allocated substantial funds. I hope the minister will continue with that thrust.
I should like to quote from the sixteenth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada entitled: "Two Cheers for the Eighties" at page 87, which reads as follows:
It is apparent that as we enter the 1980s, skilled shortages ... will get worse. This has major implications for occupational forecasting and training programs. Clearly, appropriate treatment of labour market imbalances depends crucially on accurate and timely diagnosis. A critical review is needed of the capabilities of Canadian government and industry in forecasting the demand and supply of
Employment Strategy
occupational skills, translating these into skill-training requirements, and mounting effective training programs.
One of the major recommendations of the council was that the federal government, in conjunction with the provinces, should reassess the present programs with a view to tailoring them more efficiently for labour market needs of the 1980s.
The minister made a speech in front of the Canadian Club in Toronto. He talked about critical skill training programs. 1 applaud that type of remark because I think in that regard he is indeed on the right track. But instead of cutting back his job-creation programs, if he is going to transfer funds to other areas of his department I trust that he will cease the practice he has been involved in since the beginning of the year of transferring funds to purposes other than job-creation purposes, and that he will think in terms of transferring them to this type of program.
This brings me to the Canada Works program which is mentioned quite specifically in the motion. In that regard not only is the minister not content to decrease the amount of money put into the Canada Works program this year by something over $40 million, but also he talks of eliminating the program completely next year. Perhaps moneys can be used in a better way, but the minister has yet to tell us what that better way is. It is really incumbent upon him, before eliminating programs in such a complete and drastic fashion, to tell us what he is going to do with the program and where he is going to spend the money. It would be a good idea if now and then he told Parliament what he was going to do or what he has in mind, instead of telling the Canadian Club in Toronto or other service clubs across the country. But at the moment the minister refuses to answer questions put to him by members of Parliament. He keeps on putting us off by telling us that all of his answers will be in the budget, the budget which has been put back a number of times over the past few weeks. We end up with a situation where we have no answers given to us by the minister, and the only way we can find out what is on his mind, if anything, is by reading the speeches he makes outside this House.
The minister takes a great deal of consolation from the fact that 98 per cent of his Canada Works funds this year will be spent in Quebec and the maritime provinces, with a few dollars dropped off in British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I should like to go over the list with the minister. I should like to compare what was done last year for a whole series of communities in Canada under the Canada Works program. In Newfoundland last year the amount was $17.1 million. The minister has increased it slightly by bringing this amount up to $19.6 million. Taking 10 per cent away for inflation, we are at about the same situation as last year. Prince Edward Island last year had $3.1 million. This year it will be $3.7 million. Nova Sotia last year had $11 million and will have $11 million this year, a decrease in real terms of about 10 per cent. New Brunswick last year had $15.7 million and New Brunswick this year will have $15.1 million, another decrease of about 10 per cent in real terms.

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
Dealing with Quebec, I should like to quote from a communique which was released by the minister's colleague. But first, let me point out that:
[ Translation]
In Quebec, this year, in relation to the Canada Works program, last year the government had $62.3 million available for all Quebec constituencies. This year, the new Conservative government cancels the program in 33 constituencies-


Pierre Raymond Savard: Shame!


Francis Fox: -and reduces by $14 million Quebec's allocation, without any provision for the eroded value of money due to inflation.
So the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) stated in his press release, and I quote:
Mr. La Salle expressed his satisfaction with Mr. Atkey's announcementof a reduction in the order of $14 million, and if I add another $4 million because of inflation, he expressed his satisfaction at the $18 million reduction, his satisfaction at the disentitlement of 33 constituencies with a high unemployment rate-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Francis Fox: -his satisfaction that next year he is completely eliminating the Canada Works program not only in Quebec but across Canada, he expressed his satisfaction-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Horrendous!


Francis Fox: On this side of the House, this gives us no satisfaction.


An hon. Member:: Wait and see what his constituents will have to say!


Mr. Darling:: Read the Ontario figures.


Francis Fox: I will read the Ontario figures at the suggestion of my colleague on the other side of the House. They are very embarrassing. It is very embarrassing for those good members of Parliament who were elected in the province of Ontario. It is very embarrassing to those people who went from door to door during the last campaign telling people what type of job-creation programs they would be offering.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Francis Fox: It is very embarrassing. Last year the province of Ontario received from the previous Liberal government moneys under the Canada Works program for communities across Ontario where there were high levels of unemployment and in which there were many valid social objectives to be met. They received $22 million from the Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Francis Fox: This year those same northern communities across Ontario, those same eastern and southern communities as well, which used these funds for valid local purposes and for valid social objectives, are receiving nothing. Last year $22 million

was given to municipalities and groups across the province of Ontario. The new government has taken that $22 million away from them completely and has left nothing in its place.
What have they done in Manitoba? Last year Manitoba received from the Liberal government $9.4 million under Canada Works. What is it receiving under the guidance of the new Minister of Employment and Immigration? It is receiving nothing.


An hon. Member:: Zero.


Francis Fox: What is happening to the communities in northern Manitoba? What is happening to the ridings represented by members of Parliament who have undoubtedly brought their points of view to bear? I challenge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to tell me that there is no Conservative member of Parliament from Ontario or Manitoba who has not registered his strong dissent with the minister over the elimination of their provinces from the application of that program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: It is the same thing in the province of Alberta which received $5 million last year and will receive nothing this year.
But let me mention also the great largesse of this government toward the people of the Yukon. This year the Yukon will be receiving something like $99,000 from this program. Last year it was ten times that amount. The Northwest Territories is receiving an amount which is almost an insult, but of course we are used to seeing insults bandied about by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration who treated in a cavalier fashion all those young Canadians presently working in one of the programs sponsored by his department. He was quoted in one of the Toronto newspapers as referring to them as "middle-class people who are looking for a job to spend a year on their own". I challenge him to come into my riding and see some of the things being done by these kids at Camp Bouchard in the city of Blainville.
To get back to the Northwest Territories, this year the government, which is interested in the north, is handing out $39,000 to the Northwest Territories under the Canada Works program. To my mind that is an insult. I am sure the people there would have preferred to receive nothing, rather than have the piddling sum of $39,000 thrown at them. Last year the amount of $2.8 million was spent by the previous government in the Northwest Territories.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: The minister of state for unemployment development!


Francis Fox: -the present situation. Six months of inaction, six months during which the minister had time to develop policies for the new economic conditions we are going through. Rather than formulate new policies, he has been content to this day to come up with programs we introduced last year. They are excellent programs, but because they were designed last year, they are not relevant to the new economic conditions.
December 6, 1979

The minister ignored the fact that there is a recession in the United States and that under his government we are subject to the highest interest rates in our history. He totally ignored the fact that with his energy policy and his decision to increase oil prices, he is going to create, according to even his Conservative friends in Ontario and the Ontario premier himself, 137,000 more unemployed by 1981, and this is his policy, Mr. Speaker.
And now, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the minister two or three approaches. In my opinion, if those policies are to be consistent, they must aim at two or three objectives. There is the temporary job creation. Whether you like it or not, in our country, temporary job-creation will always be necessary to make it through the hard winter months, unless, as the minister proposes, we force people on to unemployment insurance all through the winter. We should see to it instead, Mr. Speaker, that these people are productive in our society. Now, mention is made of temporary job-creation during the difficult months, of permanent job creation, of course, and more important, manpower training, the training of skilled workers, since we know that the reservoir of skilled workers we had in the past no longer exists. We cannot depend any more on immigration to meet our needs for skilled workers. We must train those workers in our own country.
And what is most shocking is to realize, every year in September or at graduation time, that CEGEP, secondary level and university students have been trained for jobs that no longer exist. And 1 wish to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to set up the mechanisms required to put an end to that situation. These matters obviously come under provincial jurisdiction, but if the Minister of Employment and Immigration really wants to promote a national manpower policy, he must see to it that those young people will not undertake years and years of studies that lead to a dead end.
The minister was telling the Canadian Club in Toronto that there are going to be a number of openings for skilled workers because of the pipeline construction to come. These are new developments that are coming about. I think it is incumbent upon the minister to see to it that we cease training people in this country for jobs that do not exist and that we make a concerted effort to see to it that skilled training meets the requirements and the needs of industry.
As members of Parliament we have all had constituents come to our office and tell us about the fact that their children have gone to school for a number of years and there is nothing for them at the end of that schooling period. I tell the minister that up until now the type of system we have had in place does not sufficiently take into account the over-all employment needs of the country. I am not saying it is his fault, and I am not sure it is anyone's fault. It is one thing to have manpower needs in one province and deciding what the manpower needs are in that province, but it is quite another thing to consider
Employment Strategy
the needs right across the country. That is not the proper way to consider the problem. The proper way is to look at what the national manpower needs are right across the country. Looking at the manpower needs of one province is perhaps the way to prepare people for jobs in that province, but that closes frontiers in relation to jobs in other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would urge the minister to reconsider past decisions. The position taken by the minister today to eliminate entirely the Canada Works program, when he has absolutely no alternative to offer that idea of forcing people on unemployment is absurd. And 1 also caution the minister against the temptation to which he will undoubtedly be subjected, that is to take all existing programs within his department, to arrange them in a certain way and present them to us in a new wrapping during the Christmas season. That is not good enough.
We think there are several excellent programs within that department. We feel those programs could be rearranged, must be assessed in depth and can be somewhat reoriented. But we think the present attitude of the minister who reduces the funds earmarked for job creation and resubmits nearly everything that exists within his department in a new wrapping is not good enough. It is an approach we condemn as well as his attitude today in this area, since taking over that department on June 4 last.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, in looking at this motion I notice its central theme is that the government is supposed to have taken more action than it has to create the jobs that Canadians need. I would like to suggest to hon. members opposite that there is a central fallacy in the whole philosophy of the opposition's approach to job creation.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 want to apologize to the minister for my intervention. Whe he started his speech, we did not have the translation, and I wanted very much to understand the beginning. So I am sorry for interrupting him. I do not know whether the translation is available now, but we did not have it when he started his speech.


Ronald George Atkey: There is no problem, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my speech over again.

This is a motion, Mr. Speaker, that has as its fundamental premise the notion that the government somehow must do more in the creation of jobs in Canada. I would suggest there is a fundamental fallacy in that approach of members of the opposition, because in the real world it is not the government that creates real, long-term, continuing jobs in Canada. It is the private sector which creates the real goods and services that sell in the real world.

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Governments do not create the productive goods and resources in our society. Governments are merely organizing vehicles. It is the private sector, the manufacturers, the industrial strength of Ontario, Quebec, the western provinces and the Atlantic provinces, that create the real jobs which are going to last.
What government can do, what government should do, and what this government will do, is to set the right climate for the creation of jobs by the private sector. Government can supplement the job creation of the private sector, or government can provide incentives to the private sector to create jobs, but 1 emphasize and I repeat-and 1 cannot do this strongly enough-that it is not the government that creates the real, lasting jobs in our society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Let us look at the record of those persons opposite who formed the government, including the hon. member who just spoke. That government had a golden opportunity when it came into office in July 1974 with a very substantial majority-well I remember. Let us look at the record. When that government was elected there were 490,000 persons unemployed in Canada. That was in 1974. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 5.1 per cent. That was their beginning point and they had an opportunity then. Let us look at the record when the government was defeated in May of this year. We note that the seasonally adjusted figure indicated that 853,000 persons were unemployed and there was an unemployment rate of 7.7 per cent. That is some record-unemployment up in that five-year period, with that golden opportunity, by 2.6 per cent. The absolute number of unemployed is up by some 463,000 people. We know who these people are, Mr. Speaker. The women and the disadvantaged constitute the majority of that 463,000 increase suffered at the hands of the previous government.
There is a lesson in those numbers, Mr. Speaker. The short-term palliatives introduced by the previous government with their fancy acronyms-Canada Works, Young Canada Works, JET, JES, LIP, the Summer Job Corpse-the year-round Job Corps, together they did not succeed in reducing unemployment but rather assisted in increasing it. If a multiplicity of ill-co-ordinated, short-term, stop-gap creations was the way to cure unemployment, then the numbers should have gone down rather than up. The fundamental problems that the previous government failed to deal with have come back to haunt them in their search for band-aids.
Now hon. members opposite are saying, "Let's have more of the same. Let's have more of JET, JES, LIP, Canada Works, and all those short-term make-work projects." Those projects did not leave any lasting jobs for the young people of this country, Mr. Speaker. There is a record of continued failure, and the people of Canada let the party opposite know about it on May 22.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: A basic aim of this government is to stimulate long-term economic development and provide adequate incentives to the private sector which would expand and provide full-time and continuing jobs for more Canadians, and particularly young Canadians.
We have to create a climate of confidence in the country in order to achieve this, Mr. Speaker. We have to assure businessmen that the private sector can grow, that they can expand their labour force and that their community, their province, their country, is a good place in which to invest. We have to ensure that government assists the expansion in a variety of constructive ways. We have to ensure that the groups in our society which are the hardest hit by unemployment are those that benefit most by that expansion.
Direct government job creation has a role to play but it cannot be the primary means of creating jobs in Canada. It should not be the main vehicle in which a government puts its trust and its funds, because it is wasteful.
The hon. member who just spoke asks what the government has been doing for six months. That party would have people believe that the government has done very little and accomplished less. Nothing is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Let me put on record some facts that may be of cold comfort to hon. members opposite.


An hon. Member:: That will not take long.


Ronald George Atkey: Since this government took office, seasonally adjusted employment has risen by 232,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: What is more important, however, is that the unemployment rate, which was 7.9 per cent under the Liberal government on May 22, has fallen to 7.4 per cent, a drop of .5 per cent. The record of the last six months shows that the figure that really counts, which is the number of people not in the work force, has improved. It has not deteriorated, as was suggested.
I am an honest man, Mr. Speaker. That improvement was not merely the result of direct government job creation, nor was it a result of all the activities of this government since June 4.


Francis Fox: That is true.


Ronald George Atkey: Since June 4 we have had an improved climate for business in Canada. This is shown by record levels of investment in manufacturing. We do have large portions of the country which enjoy a considerable degree of prosperity. We have record high labour earnings, and we have a developing sense of partnership in the economic progress and the future of our country.
This improved climate of confidence and of trust is not something that just happened. It was not spun out of thin air. It happened because a new government, determined to change
December 6, 1979

things, had let the people of Canada, its partners-the unions, the provinces, the private sector-know that it is looking to them to participate in economic growth. The federal government has never stated that it alone is able to solve all the job-creation problems.
In the course of the coming budget, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) will set out the fundamental directions which Canada must take to live and thrive in an energy-scarce world. Fie will outline the measures we must take to begin to bring our deficit down rather than up, and some of the measures we plan to take to stimulate the private sector, particularly for youth.
As early as October 16, the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) asked me in this House when 1 was going to bring forward my employment strategy. 1 told him then and on a number of subsequent occasions in this House, in committee and privately, that the details of the government's employment strategy would be set forth in the context of the budget, first in general terms by my colleague the Minister of Finance, and then in greater detail in the course of the budget debate. Unless the hon. member has been away or has been ill or something, he will realize that the budget has been set for next Tuesday, December 11.1 think he is aware that, in the normal course, the budget debate follows the budget. Within the next week, therefore, the full employment strategy of the government is going to be set out in this House. There has never been any doubt about that.
I would therefore ask him why a motion couched in these terms is brought before the House at this time, when he knows that if he had waited five days he would have seen the full detail of what he wants?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: It is too late.


Ronald George Atkey: Hon. members opposite are very concerned about what they are going to hear next Tuesday night. They are concerned about the budget debate. They are concerned that an employment strategy will be put forward that relies on the private sector and gives it some incentive to create the long-term jobs which the previous government was unable or unwilling to create in their five years of opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: I am sure the hon. member opposite knows that we have not been proceeding in a vacuum during this six-month period of planning. He knows that there is in force and operating in the field among the some 25,000 employees across Canada an employment strategy for 1979-80. That program runs, for the most part, through to the end of March, 1980. He should know that, because for a period he sat in cabinet with colleagues who created portions of that employment strategy. 1 appreciate that he was absent for a few months.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is still short.


Ronald George Atkey: He realizes, of course, that there are operating programs. If we were to take his motion seriously, it would
Employment Strategy
constitute a direct and frontal attack on the programs of his own government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Let me tell the hon. member some of the ongoing programs during this so-called period of "inaction" that he is referring to. I mentioned Young Canada Works. I have some reservations about that program. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, there were 6,262 projects this past summer with a total commitment of over $54 million and some 33,000 jobs. That is since this government took office.
I am sure he has heard about the Local Employment Assistance Program. It was started on a very ineffectual basis by the previous government but this government has expanded it by some $30 million to service the communities that need it most-that is, the native communities of Canada. They have responded to it in a positive way and in very large numbers. I am sure he is well aware of the grants of half a million dollars each to Guysborough county and Nanaimo under the LEDA program. These programs are creating jobs in those communities which were hard hit by unemployment.
I am sure the hon. member is also aware of the employment tax program. I am sure he knows that one because we have certainly taken some lessons from it. It created 58,000 jobs in the private sector across Canada in a year and a half, about
36,000	of them in the last year. It is a program that happens to be working. It has as its basic and principal philosophy the use of tax incentives to the private sector to create permanent jobs in our society.
I am sure the hon. member has heard of the JES program. It was operating this past summer. There were about 5,000 jobs thereby available during the summer, which is not a bad record for a new government coming into office to make a program work. Then there was the critical trade skills training program which had some difficulties. We are going to expand this program. It will give Canadians the skills they will need in the future.
Of course, the hon. member has heard of many of the other programs as well. I am not going to go through the record. There was a summer youth employment program which operated in June, July and August under the new government. Was the hon. member aware of the 293,000 cumulative placements in the public and private sector for summer jobs under that program operating under this government? The hon. member did not mention those. To have mentioned those in the context of his motion would have been to attack some of the basic programs of his government, the government which he supported, and he knew that.
1 expect to have an opportunity, I hope very shortly, to introduce legislation in this House which will help give effect to a major new youth employment program which is to begin this winter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy


Ronald George Atkey: As 1 have already indicated, it will be a program to increase the ability of the private sector to employ young people who make up nearly half of our unemployed in Canada. We will also be putting forward plans to assist the non-profit voluntary sector. In other areas this group has shown a tremendous degree of skill and tenacity as displayed in the refugee program. The same voluntary sector will have an opportunity to hire young people to carry out environmental and other important community needs projects under the national youth service corps. Finally, I will be taking measures in the very near future to strengthen our training programs to help the private sector eliminate the bottleneck in overcoming the skill shortages which, frankly, are a legacy from the previous government.
One thing I want to assure all members is that we will be achieving more jobs, and I will say it three times-jobs, jobs, jobs at less cost, cost, cost.
Our programs are not going to fritter away the funds on jobs that are here today and gone tomorrow, like the will o' the wisp in the middle of the night. We are going to replace the employment impact of the former hodge-podge of Liberal programs with a smaller number of programs, better designed to do the job. in particular they will be designed to stimulate the creation of profitable and continuing jobs in the private sector for our unemployed young people. The way in which we have gone about the reorientation of Canada Works, which the hon. member spent a portion of his time discussing today, is a good example of the sort of approach that I have in mind. I am the first to admit that in previous periods there were isolated instances where Canada Works had its successes. But it has been an unnecessarily expensive and wasteful way of trying to create artificial jobs for Canadians.
What Canadians want is not jobs that average 30 weeks, which is the experience under Canada Works. They want jobs that last, not jobs that disappear with the government funds that supported and created them in the first place or created dependency upon provincial or municipal governments. Canadians want solid, long-term job creation, not the kind that disappears and leads people right back to unemployment insurance. We will get rid of that vicious cycle of government job creation back to U1 and then back to government job creation. That is a vicious cycle, Mr. Speaker, which destroys the very creative soul of our young people in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: The opposition seems to ask why the program was not in place the day we took office. Where was your program on June 4, they ask. They know perfectly well why it was not in place.


Francis Fox: This is December 6, six months later.


Ronald George Atkey: Hon. members know why it will be in place next week. Hon. members will know why it took six months to put it together. One cannot streamline and rationalize overnight a large hodge-podge of old programs, and a few sensible ones I

confess. To turn programs around and point them in the right direction takes time, thought and planning.
1 want to pay a particular tribute to officials in the Canada Employment Immigration Commission for their willingness to innovate and to respond to a philosophical direction that will put this country back in the right direction.
The program was not put together overnight, but it is put together. The important thing is that it will be done right.


An hon. Member:: That will be a change.


Ronald George Atkey: That is why we decided rather early on in Canada Employment and Immigration that we had no choice but to go ahead with some of the plans of the previous government, particularly to mount a further Canada Works program, on a limited basis albeit. We knew that it would not be possible to have major new youth programs operating right away, although we were comforted by the fact that there were some youth programs operating then, some effectively and some ineffectively. We decided to use the plans of the previous government as a temporary bridging device from the old to the new.
I am happy to be able to say, however, that we simply did not repeat the old Canada Works program with all its unnecessary expenditures and abuses. We deliberately chose to restrict the temporary and final phase of Canada Works to those parts of the country with the highest unemployment, the highest labour surplus rates. Hon. members opposite know that. They know the areas of greatest need. It is no secret that the constituencies of greatest need and highest unemployment are not represented by members supporting the government. Nevertheless, the money was put where the people needed it the most.
All constituencies with a labour surplus rate of over 9 per cent are receiving Canada Works funds. Any constituency with unemployment rates below that rate are receiving no funds at all. I hardly need point out that this is a very different practice from that of the previous government. In earlier phases of Canada Works large areas of the country which had relatively low unemployment rates nevertheless received funds to stimulate a temporary job creation.
Saskatchewan and Alberta had seasonally adjusted unemployment rates of 4.1 and 3.9 respectively, yet they still received substantial funding under the arrangements of the Liberal government. This was not only unnecessary, it was wasteful and in many instances it was pernicious. The city of Edmonton-I have nothing against Edmonton; I am very fond of that city-had an unemployment rate of less than 3 per cent. It received $600,000 in Canada Works funds under the Liberal government from 1978 to 1979. It is extremely difficult to understand why in an area where labour is in short supply the previous government would insist upon stimulating the demand for labour. It is pushing where one should be pulling. That is exactly what the previous government did. In many areas of the country where unemployment was either moderate or low the previous government used Canada Works
December 6, 1979

funds in a way that increased labour shortages rather than reduced unemployment.


Francis Fox: Table the study.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. The Chair has been very lenient in allowing the conversations that are going back and forth between members on both sides of the House. They have not been directed to the Chair. If hon. members wish to carry on these conversations in a jestful manner, there is space provided behind the chamber. I suggest they do it out there. I ask that the remarks of the hon. minister be directed to the Chair. Let us have order in the House, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well said, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to address my remarks to you. What the previous government was doing in its Canada Works program was engaging in the kind of wasteful, unfocused and inappropriate expenditures of funds which no government, looking at the labour market demands of the 1980s, should ever tolerate. As I said, this government will not squander the funds in that manner. We have too great a responsibility to the people of Canada, who elected a responsible government-which means a fiscally responsible government-not to squander funds in that fashion.
Instead of spending Canada Works funds in the low unemployment areas of the country, we have used them to increase the funds available for the creation of medium-term and long-term employment of, for example, native people. The LEAP program, to which 1 have already made reference, has increased its budget this year by about one-quarter to a level of nearly $50 million. This money will create long-term, permanent jobs for native people in areas where they need them the most. Of course, those native people have suffered for a great many years from a lack of long-term economic development and high unemployment rates. It is a very serious situation and we will come to grips with it directly.
I think that the House and the country will agree that this money is better and more productively spent in that fashion than if it were used to increase labour shortages in Calgary, Edmonton, Regina and many other parts of the country where labour shortages actually exist. I must add that the restriction of Canada Works to the high unemployment areas of Canada and the use of Canada Works funds to assist the long-term native development under LEAP is a course of action which is heartily concurred in by all provincial governments from coast to coast.
I asked members of the provincial governments directly in July, November and December what their view of Canada Works is. Now, I can say that without exception the provincial governments have indicated to us that because of its ineffectiveness, moving toward a phasing out of Canada Works is a step in the right direction. They have, as have the members on
Employment Strategy
this side, no love of short-term, stop-gap, make-work type projects which create dependency on provincial and municipal governments and leave no long-term benefits.
It is significant that despite the suggestion of inhumane cutbacks from hon. members opposite, I have received very few complaints from the communities or individuals who are allegedly subjected to this inhumane treatment. Ordinary people know that Canada Works was not an effective program. They know that it makes little sense to create artificial jobs like these, particularly in areas where jobs often cannot even be filled. I suspect that the opposition will soon come to realize this as well.
I must make reference to the fact that the greatest number of complaints I get about the Canada Works program and its cutback are from some of the hon. members opposite who have been accustomed to the fact that they have had a so-called right of appearing to dispense local patronage in their constituencies. Somehow with the cutback, that right of dispensation of local patronage is no longer there.
Indeed, 1 am constrained to make reference to one hon. member who just yesterday was saying to me that he needed a Canada Works project in his riding to keep open the almost
1,000	miles of snowmobile trails which the tourists use to service the commercial hotels in his region. I asked the hon. member why he needed the snowmobile trails open, and he said that it was good for the business of the hotel operators. I asked him, if no Canada Works is available next year, what he intended to do. He said that the provincial government would pick it up. 1 then asked him why the keeping of the snowmobile trails open must be subsidized by the federal government. He replied that it had always been done that way. That was his answer, and he went on to say that this would be the fourth time around. Without naming the hon. member, 1 can assure him that there will not be a fourth time around on that sort of make-work project.
It is the intention of this government to build a real economic partnership with the private sector in the provinces. It is well known now that in January there will be a national economic development conference which, I hope, will be a key step in the building of that partnership. Much of the success of the measures which we will be undertaking will depend on collaboration and support from the provinces, employers and union leaders. It is fallacious to suppose that the federal government can, just by spending money in isolation, generate the economic growth and employment development which Canada must have in the 1980s. To repeat, "partnership" means a climate of mutual confidence, confidence on the part of the private sector that the goal of government is to encourage, not to interfere merely for the sake of doing so. It means confidence on the part of the government that the private sector can and will make the most of the opportunities available to provide Canadians with the goods, services and jobs that we need and can absorb.
This is not, and it must never be, a matter of mere blind ideology. Rather, it involves a certain political commitment and faith in the essential rightness of our pluralistic and

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
private enterprise system and a political commitment on the part of the government to encourage, rather than stifle, the creativity of private business in Canada. I fully realize that after years in which the prevailing climate was one of mutual suspicion and mistrust-certainly in the last 11 years-it may take some time for a new climate to prevail. It may take more than the six months we have had.


Francis Fox: Or the six months you have got.


Ronald George Atkey: There is no doubt that this is our goal, and it is a goal that we will attain. We have already gone some distance to repair the tears in the fabric of Canadian society. I look forward next week to outlining in this chamber the youth employment program of this government. This program is just not for this winter but for the long-term future as well. We are now approaching the peak in the youth labour force, which will come around 1982, perhaps 1983. In that sense it is a shorter, medium-term problem, not a long-term problem.
Extremely high and rising youth unemployment rates have made it plain that we must take measures now to help the young people. In the mid 1980s I believe that the problem may be somewhat different. In fact, it is an economic and social imperative in Canada that if we do not get jobs for or train our young people for the skills that they will need, we will merely be creating another generation to live on unemployment insurance. This government does not intend to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired. He can only continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided he takes only a couple of minutes. There are too many members who want to speak today.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I did want to mention, in my two minutes that I can utilize in this context, another serious problem, and that is the problem of unemployment among women. This government, as was indicated by the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) and myself during question period today, is committed to reducing the female unemployment rate in Canada. We are committed to reducing job segregation with the ultimate aim of eliminating it altogether, and we are committed to lowering the wage gap between men and women, again with the eventual aim of getting rid of it.
I also want to mention the commitment of myself and this government to affirmative action in a promotional sense on a federal contract compliance program on a much greater and effective basis than that attempted or realized by the previous government. 1 want to reaffirm the commitment of this government to establish pilot projects in our Canada employment centres for improved service to female clients. I want to make reference to the restoration of the Liberal budget cut in the Outreach program and to giving higher priority to women as a target group for Outreach projects in various communities.
I want to talk about, develop and implement policies relating to employer exploitation of domestic workers here in

Canada on work permits. As minister responsible for immigration as well as employment, I have the power and authority to implement such programs. I want to make available for women who are training in non-traditional occupations the facilities of support services, such as daycare centres, to enable them to go into that non-traditional sort of work.
I want a model training program for women on mothers allowance in the life skill-training program for native women to be developed. This is all with a view to giving women an opportunity to enter into the work force and participate on a full basis.
If I can end on a more futuristic note, the problem of the next two or three years is youth employment. This government will meet that challenge in co-operation and in partnership with the private sector. In longer terms, perhaps, an equally if not more serious problem is women's unemployment. That is not going to disappear in two or three years, because women are in the work force, Mr. Speaker. Women are in the work force to stay. This government will create the climate, create the framework and create the programs which will allow more women to participate effectively and equally in Canada's work force. 1 look forward to developing and implementing those programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. Olivier) on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 apologize, Mr. Speaker, I thought you had recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and as 1 had not seen him rise, I thought I had risen before him. That is all I wanted to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Had the motion moved today by the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) been slated to come to a vote tonight, members of the New Democratic Party would have voted for the motion. But I say to the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes that we would have done that in spite of his speech and not because of his speech.
Whenever I listen to Liberal speakers, Mr. Speaker, I am again amazed, and increasingly so, by the arrogance and gall of Liberal members of Parliament. The hon. member attacked the government-the Conservative government-for a number of reasons, and for each reason for which he attacked the Conservative government, he was attacking them, in fact, for continuing policies which were implemented and continued by
December 6, 1979

Liberal governments through all the years I have been in this Parliament.
The hon. member attacked the Conservative government because it had no employment strategy. Well, I say to him that his government, which was in office from 1963 to 1979, had no employment strategy. 1 would like to put on the record the fact that in 1970 when the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) was prime minister we had in this country
420,000	unemployed and the rate of unemployment was 5.2 per cent. Eight years later, in 1978, we had nearly one million unemployed and the rate of unemployment was over 8 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Liberal government had in the way of an employment strategy.
The member attacked the Conservative government because interest rates have gone up. The record is clear. Whenever in recent years interest rates went up in the United States, the governor of the Bank of Canada recommended an increase in the bank interest rate in Canada and the Liberal government acquiesced in and approved that increase. What has the Conservative government done? It has done precisely the same thing; it has followed the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada and increased interest rates in the same way as when the Liberals formed the government.
The member attacked the government opposite because it is permitting oil prices in Canada to move toward world prices. Well, of course, the Conservative government is pledged to increase oil prices in Canada at a faster rate than they were increasing under the Liberal government. But the objective is precisely the same. 1 see the hon. member shaking his head. This is not the time, Mr. Speaker, but we could put on record the statements made on more than one occasion by the former Liberal minister of energy, mines and resources in which he said the objective of the Liberal government was to move oil prices to where they would reach 90 per cent of the Chicago price. The hon. gentleman can shake his head, but at the right time we will set the record clear.
The member criticized the present government because there is a shortage of skilled workers. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a shortage of skilled workers in this country. In my province of Manitoba, just last week Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, which operates a number of mines in Manitoba, applied to the department of manpower for permission to bring in a substantial number of skilled workers from outside Canada because they could not fill their needs from within Canada. That has happened in virtually every other province in this country. Under Liberal governments we have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on manpower training, yet despite the fact that we had a million unemployed we have not been able to fill the jobs in this country which call for skilled people. That is to a large extent the responsibility of the mistaken, misguided policies of the department of manpower under a Liberal government.
Let me begin by saying that unemployment is a very serious problem. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) who spoke a few minutes ago was proud of the fact that unemployment has gone down in recent months. That is
Employment Strategy
true, it has gone down in recent months, but the fact is that in October the number of unemployed went up for the first time in a number of months and there were 843,000 unemployed. In October the rate went up to 7.4 per cent. Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is aware of the fact that the United States, not only our neighbour but our biggest customer and biggest supplier, is now into a recession, one which looks as if it might be a major recession. That being the case, I think the minister and the government are making a major error in assuming that the programs which they and the former government have initiated are likely to have any serious effect on the increasing unemployment we shall see in the coming year.
Mr. Speaker, our party believes this country should aim for full employment. When we talk about full employment, we are not talking about a rate of 7 per cent or 8 per cent which some of the so-called experts-the economists in universities, in government and in private industry, all of whom have pretty good, secure jobs-are trying to explain means full employment? When we talk about employment, we are talking about full employment as described some years ago by the Economic Council, among other organizations. Full employment in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is 4 per cent, not 8 per cent or 7 per cent as some economists are now saying.
We have not been anywhere near that rate for a long time. What does that mean? The difference between full employment-that is, an unemployment rate of 4 per cent-and the 8 per cent to 8.5 per cent unemployment we have had in recent years means that in this country we have lost in each of those years in the neighbourhood of $5 billion worth of production. That means that federal, provincial and municipal governments have lost in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion in taxation. That is the result of the failure of Liberal and Conservative governments to have as an objective and to put into effect a policy and a program of full employment.
In beginning his remarks the minister said that his government believes that the major responsibility for providing employment rests with the private sector and that it is the private sector which must provide real and permanent jobs. Nobody in this House would question that in a theoretical way. Whether the present Conservative government believes more in private enterprise than did the Liberal government is not important.
We live in a mixed economy. Large sectors of the Canadian economy were established and operated by Liberal and Conservative governments. I do not want to list them all, but I can think of the electric power systems which are publicly owned and operated in virtually all our provinces. I can think of the telephone systems in the three prairie provinces which are publicly owned and operated. I can think of Air Canada, the CNR and a host of others. That is not going to change under any government, including an NDP government, so the minister is correct when he says that the main responsibility for providing jobs rests with the private sector.

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
In order for the private sector to provide jobs it has to have the right climate. I suggest that it did not have the right climate under the Liberal government and that it does not have the right climate under this Conservative government. Interest rates have increased sharply in the few months during which the Conservatives have been in power. High interest rates are a disaster. For whom? For the small businessman, because large corporations do not have to depend as much on banks as do small businesses. Large corporations have internal funds. They can go to their multinational headquarters. They can go to their deferred income tax accounts, which now range in the billions of dollars.	.
In the last few months I have met many small businessmen who have told me about the high cost of keeping inventory with interest rates at 15 per cent or 16 per cent. Many of the people to whom they sell are slow in paying their bills because they have not sold their merchandise, and that is killing business.
With the exception of Italy, we have the highest rate of unemployment of any of the western industrialized countries, and the reason for that is the failure of both Liberal and Conservative governments to develop an industrial strategy. That failure has led to the deterioration of our manufacturing industries and the inability of Canadian manufacturers to compete with other corporations in Canada or on world markets. The microphones which are in front of me and every member of Parliament were built in Austria, a country which has about a quarter of the population of this country, yet it is able to produce these microphones and sell them in Canada obviously cheaper than any Canadian manufacturer can. That says something about our position with regard to manufacturing.
A large part of the reason for our difficulty is the stranglehold which multinational corporations have in many of the vital sectors of manufacturing. In the automobile industry, in chemicals, in the rubber industry-to mention just three examples-multinational corporations have virtual control. Multinationals have no responsibility to Canada as a country. They have responsibility only to their shareholders to produce the largest profits possible. I do not blame them, I blame ourselves. I blame our governments for not developing an industrial strategy to meet the needs of the Canadian people for jobs.
Given the slowdown in the economy, which is worldwide, and given the double jeopardy of the cutbacks in government activity by this government, we are going to see a sharp increase in unemployment in the next year. We are going to see that, as I said, because this Conservative government does not-nor did the Liberal government-accept the principle that it is the responsibility of governments to see that people in Canada who want to work will have the opportunity to get work.
We were critical of many of the aspects and features of the job-creation programs brought into effect when the Liberal party formed the government of this country. Some of the criticisms made by the present Minister of Employment and

Immigration and by his colleagues when they were in opposition were justified because those job-creation programs were ad hoc programs. They were put together to meet situations which the then government had not anticipated and with which it tried to deal through a whole patchwork of programs. We made these criticisms when those programs were in effect. We welcome any concrete, workable improvements, but I say to the minister that, given the fact that unemployment has increased and is going to increase even more, the cutbacks in job-creation funding implemented by his government will have a disastrous effect on the unemployed in this country.
I know that the minister has not agreed with me on earlier occasions when I said that the cutbacks amounted to about $75 million, but they are very substantial cutbacks. If they are not $75 million, they are at least $50 million. The smaller amount which is now available through Canada Works programs in those provinces in which the Canada Works program is still operating-and those are the provinces east of Ontario-and the increased LEAP funding which, when taken together with the Canada Works programs which are funded for this year and the coming year, amount to substantially less than what was available last year and the year before, is not good enough. The fact is that there is not enough money in total. The minister and his department has decided that provincial unemployment rates in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia were lower than the 8 per cent which I think they said was the floor over which they would provide Canada Works programs. The minister should know that, even if that were true, in each of those provinces there are areas and groups of people among whom the rate of unemployment is very high. In my province, the rate of unemployment among the native people is very high, ranging from, in some reserves, 80 per cent to 90 per cent and at some times in the year to a situation in the city of Winnipeg where the unemployment rate for native people is very high while the over-all rate, as the minister knows, is relatively low. Yet the minister cut off the Canada Works funding, and I say to the minister that the LEAP funds provided for the province of Manitoba are far short of what is required to meet the needs of the native people.
My colleague from Newfoundland tells me that while the Canada Works funding has not been reduced directly in his constituency, funds which were available previously through the department of fisheries and which were used to supplement the Canada Works programs for improving harbours and wharves have been cut back this year. My colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)-and his is a constituency with a very large native population-tells me that last year $3 million was available but this year only $500,000 is available.
I say to the minister that I have tried to make it my business to be in touch with leaders of the native communities in my own province and across the country, the leaders of any native organization, whether it be the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood or the Manitoba Metis Federation-and one could go across the country listing the various organizations-and I have not
December 6, 1979

met one who has not felt and does not feel that the funding of employment programs or job-creation programs for these people is, to say the least, insufficient.
We are facing a very difficult time. Unemployment is not going to disappear, it is going to get worse. The length of time in which the people of Canada were prepared to accept the arguments of the present government that whatever their problems are is the fault of the former government has run out. The polls taken by Gallup recently which indicated that the support for the government has dropped to 28 per cent is a clear indication that the people of Canada do not accept the arguments of the present government that it is following correct policies and that it is doing all that can be done. The Liberal government which was defeated in May of this year was defeated because the people of Canada felt that the government was not dealing with their problems.
The government was elected because it promised to follow different policies. What the people of Canada are finding is that the present Conservative government is following precisely the same policies as the former Liberal government. They are indicating their disapproval. They did so in two byelections and they did so as indicated by the Gallup poll.
I urge the minister and the government to take the problem of unemployment seriously and to face up to the fact that this country and the world are facing difficult times. I urge the minister and the government to stop believing in the principle-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He can continue only with unanimous accord. Is there unanimous agreement to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Two minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member may continue briefly.


David Orlikow: I urge the minister and the government to drop the simplistic notion that the private sector of the economy, if it is unshackled, will get this country moving, that it will by itself provide all the jobs which are required. That was the prescription tried in the 1930s by another Conservative government headed by Mr. R. B. Bennett. That policy was an abysmal failure and I hope that the present Conservative government has learned something, that it will adopt policies and give some government leadership so that we can get this country moving and start reducing the number of unemployed, which we have not done now for a number of years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under Standing Order 29, I move that the hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. Olivier) be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Could the Chair have the motion in writing, please.
Employment Strategy


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since our friends of the Social Credit party are likely to get only one speaker today, why should we take 20 or 30 minutes to vote on this issue? I wonder if my friend would not consider withdrawing his motion.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member for Longueuil on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, 1 merely want to remind the previous speaker that he knows the standing orders quite well. The motion under consideration is not debatable and he has just spoken merely to take up the time of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: In my opinion the yeas have it. The hon. member for Longueuil has the floor.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for having so closely considered the motion which has just been passed. I think that once and for all, when the official opposition has an allotted day, we should know if it is really for the official opposition or for the other parties which will have their own allotted day to deal with motions and perhaps continue to support the government. We do not want this, we want to show during allotted days that as far as job creation is concerned the only result we can see, if we really try to get a general idea, the only tangible result we find is that it is already too late, that there has been no job creation in the country; on the contrary, unemployment went up again in October. Our socialist friends tried to show that we in the opposition were responsible for the creation of jobs, that we were responsible for the government.
I do not know what they are aiming at, Mr. Speaker, but we realize that this group of intellectuals who have practically never worked and have always maintained that they were in favour of the workers are merely interested in their votes. They are the people who want to win on all counts and who most of the time suggest extreme solutions which they know to be ineffective. They already know it. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, I wonder sometimes what they are doing here. If they are here

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
strictly to talk, I have not yet seen any constructive achievements. We are asking them to support us in the job-creation process. The hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) showed very well that, as far as job creation is concerned, the minister has not been able to name one project of his own.
Mr. Speaker, they keep telling us that they did not have time, the session has just started. Mr. Speaker, as far as 1 know, they were elected more than six months ago. They have had over six months to look into the situation. What is most funny is that, if I remember well, before the election they had set up a famous take-over committee to prepare for the transition if they ever won the election.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Wait till you see our budget.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: They won the election, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) wants to speak, if he wants to deal with labour problems and strikes, if he really wants to deal with the problem of Bell Canada employees who only got a 2.5 raise since 1977, he should look after his business rather than shout across the House. He is now becoming, by his answers in this House, the greatest dodger we ever had as Minister of Labour. He should concentrate on learning about his department, on opening files and reading them.
Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the creation of nonemployment. He is called the minister of employment. 1 wonder why, but he is called the minister of employment. 1 would call him the minister of unemployment creation. One could call him a lot more things than that. He was unable to show what he had done to try and solve the problem of unemployment. The hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes showed quite clearly that by successive and dangerous increases in energy prices, by the bargaining between the Prime Minister and the Conservative premiers who decided to overtax Canadians, to allow oil companies not to pay taxes- Shell Canada made a profit of $400 million last year and did not pay a single cent in taxes. After that, they tell us they are going to create jobs with private enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to represent small businesses and all Canadian workers. Unlike the Progressive Conservative party, we shall never agree to be identified with the multinationals that are called big finance. You need only see how their party hires the members of its executive to realize that their best friends are not strangers to Imperial Oil. They are often very close to them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Shame!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: The Minister of Labour shouts: shame! I agree with him but he should admit it publicly. He should have the courage to rise and say: Shame on my party for always being

on the side of multinationals. But he lacks courage. If the Minister of Labour lets me continue in peace I shall do the same for him. He should deal with the problems in his own department.
We have been told that jobs have been created but they were unable to tell us how many were created. I hope the parliamentary secretary will answer that question. Mr. Speaker, unemployment has increased in October. They did not say much on that subject. The minister himself asked leave to go beyond his allotted time. We accepted. Why? Because after 30 minutes he had yet to say one word about female manpower.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) has not said a word about women workers in Canada even though they are being exploited. Members on this side decided to give him an opportunity to speak because we are interested in knowing what will happen to these underprivileged people. We only have to look at small manufacturers to see how these people are working for minimum wages,
10	and 12 hours a day, because there is no labour minister responsible enough to present legislation to help them to regroup and defend themselves.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I asked the following question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie):
Do you not find that minimum wages of $2.90 an hour in Canada are somewhat indecent and do you not think that you could increase them somewhat?
His only answer was to say that he would deal with this in his budget. The government is lucky to have a budget to bring down in the near future because whenever we ask them very specific questions, Mr. Speaker, they reply that we must wait for the budget.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it will be too late on December
11	to create employment for this winter; it will be too late for the unemployed of Matane, of the Beauce region, of Montreal, of Roberval and of Quebec City. Mr. Speaker, members opposite do not seem to be taking seriously the issue of job-creation. They talk about creating a peaceful climate for private enterprise, and then they tell us an employment strategy cannot be developed by the government, job creation should not be the priority of a government. This is shocking, Mr. Speaker.
We know very well that without a mixed economy, some people will be exploited in an overly capitalistic system. Mr. Speaker, the minister has come back. He said that he had created employment. What has he done for the ITT-Rayonier company? What has he done for Redpath Sugars? What has he done for the Montreal Star! Three thousand jobs have been lost! He did not speak about this, Mr. Speaker.
I know of two companies in LaSalle that closed down. Kenworth laid people off, but no reference is made to that. References are to big business' nice problems. This is what
December 6, 1979

pleases them. Their people work for high finance exclusively, the multinationals. They understand each other, that is their problem. Mr. Speaker, there were 49,000 more unemployed in October than in September, and they tell us they created jobs. This is something I do not understand. In a very long time this is the first hike in the unemployment rate. The previous government succeeded in maintaining a low rate of unemployment. Under this Progressive Conservative government, we now have a 10 per cent rate in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: They will remember that!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Turning to the temporary job-creation programs, the minister this afternoon announced the end of those programs.


An hon. Member:: Right!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: It is clear to him that they will disappear.


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: They will teach him in no time.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 wonder if he has been living in California, I wonder if he knows this country, this northern country with hard winters. Since the winter season is more difficult, we need a temporary job program.


An hon. Member:: Even the minister of employment agrees.


An hon. Member:: Elis is against snowmobiles.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: They succeeded in killing the program's credibility, the Canada Works program. And how did they do this? They said: Wherever there is less than 9 per cent unemployed, there will be no Canada Works program.


An hon. Member:: When you are unemployed you do not need to eat.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: They maintain that 7 per cent, 8 per cent, 8.5 per cent unemployment is acceptable in our society. Mr. Speaker, in an affluent society such as this, suggestions that a 7 per cent or 8 per cent unemployment rate is acceptable are simply shameful.
1 suggest that the minister should reconsider his approach. It is easy for him to say fine things, just like a university professor. Again, Mr. Speaker, these are people who never had to work with their hands. Their lives have always been easy. 1 am not blaming them for that, but they should not impose additional burdens on the shoulders of those who leave their homes at six o'clock in the morning and return at five o'clock in the evening, earning some $200 a week. These hon. members could not care less. They are not concerned about how they will cope with higher gas prices. Do they know that a worker who earns $2.90 an hour, the minimum wage which the Progressive Conservative party refuses to raise, may have to
Employment Strategy
buy two gallons of gas to get to work? Do they know that he may have been working for two hours already even before getting to his job? This kind of thing is not acceptable.
What is this youth program? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) has been urging the government for several months to adopt a clear policy on the creation of jobs for our young people. Our party critic on youth has demonstrated often, also in committees, that the government is not concerned about the future, and our youth is our future.
Mr. Speaker, this government seems just as surprised as Canadians were to find itself in power. It is just as if its members had woken up one day holding the power and not knowing what to do with it. Mr. Speaker, they have been at it for six and a half months and they are still studying. I recall the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) saying they were a government of students. I reckon students are a more intelligent bunch than this government. If those in power were actually students of economics and finance from anywhere in Canada they would have done things a hundred times better than them, Mr. Speaker. A hundred times better would not be so difficult, I can tell you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get gack to the very obvious reluctance of the government to protect working women. The Minister of Labour, the man who should care about that situation, should realize how working women are being exploited and how small and big enterprises exploit them.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that in 1979, almost 1980, it is unacceptable for a woman who often brings food to the household to live in a system which does not produce the number of jobs needed because of the lack of an employment policy. This lack of policy is difficult to understand. If the price of gas is soon raised to $2.25 a gallon it will have repercussions throughout the economy, it will boost the profits of companies by hundreds of millions of dollars, it will generate inflation. Inflation reduces employment, thereby creating more unemployment, and in addition, this government decided to introduce legislation cutting the present unemployment benefits to solve the problem of the unemployed. Well, it looks as though this government has made its choice: the rich in our society should dominate, they should be in control and the poor should listen, they should follow, they should always say yes. Their policy is something like that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the minister to announce that there would be new programs for youth this winter, that the Canada Works program would remain.
1 should like to stress here, Mr. Speaker, the partisan way in which they intend to create jobs. They decided that a constituency would need to have a 9 per cent unemployment rate to be eligible for Canada Works projects. Mr. Speaker, Lon-gueuil has a population of 130,000. Prince Edward Island has
118,000	and they have four federal members of Parliament

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
and, I believe, 30 provincial members. Longueuil is home to about 85,000 votes. They have decided it would be based on a percentage. So suppose you have 130,000 people in a given constituency and 30,000 in another . This means, to use round figures, 10 per cent of 130,000 unemployed. Well, even if there were 13,000 in our constituency, because they are numerous, they are not eligible for a Canada Works project.
If they think there are fewer unemployed but the percentage is a little higher, then they are entitled to one of these projects, Mr. Speaker. These are the selective programs of the Progressive Conservative government. And this is the partisanship shown by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Nielsen) and especially by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) who is now the one who makes the decisions in Quebec. It is the hon. member for Joliette who decides, Mr. Speaker, who in Quebec will have funds for a Canada Works project. The applicant must prove he is a Conservative before he gets the grant. I suggest this is shameful for our Parliament. It is a shame to this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, to make partisan politics at the expense of the unemployed, at the expense of women, and it is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, not to have any policy for working women, for young people and for the unemployed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With the consent of the House, would be hon. member allow one short question? 1 wonder whether he could advise the House if his particular constituency is involved with Canada Works, and to what extent in terms of dollars. I just wanted to know whether he had been excluded or included.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform the hon. member that I have as many projects as there are Progressive Conservatives. I have none.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be brief, and I want to thank all my friends from Quebec, the Liberals, for that dirty trick this afternoon. Only guys from Quebec could do that, and 1 apologize to the people for them. Besides, if 1 had been asked I would have gracefully given him the floor. 1 am very happy to have the opportunity to speak on this opposition motion. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) for introducing the motion which reads as follows:
That this House deplores the complete inaction of the government, after six months in office, with regard to the creation of jobs, regrets the inhumane cutbacks in the Canada Works program that have eliminated hundreds of communities across Canada.
We must say to the people, Mr. Speaker, that this opposition motion is of course another opportunity for us to criticize the government and urge it to propose policies which are more

in keeping with the needs of the times. In these discussions, as in all others, we of the Social Credit Party of Canada always try to be as constructive as possible because our motto is not to criticize for the sake of criticizing. We rely on concrete proposals, faced as we are with the lack of decisiveness shown by those responsible for our financial situation and who have always been the policymakers in Canada.
When we read the motion, we realize that it insists on job creation. Here the two old parties show what they really stand for, the belief they still have in the full employment thesis, while we believe in guaranteed income for all. The Liberals, who are only slower socialist unionists than the New Democratic Party or sometimes reformed socialists, since the former prime minister was once a socialist, still hang on to the full employment theory. They have not yet been able to attune themselves to progress in all sectors.
And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the present government will finally revolutionize the old ideas, because Tories are said to be extremely conservative, to launch into real social reforms which will allow us to catch up on the extraordinary scientific, industrial, mechanical and even electronic evolution, so that we can achieve a humanized economic system in which each and every Canadian will benefit from our tremendous wealth.
We are living in the electronic age, I would even say the space age; yet from the social and human point of view we are 50 years behind the times. One hundred years or even fifty years ago people said right and left that one had to work to make a living; that was understandable in those days, Mr. Speaker, since the cottage industry was the basic industry and production depended on the actual number of craftsmen.
But today, now that the machine has replaced the artisan, forcing over 60 per cent of the regular labour force into unemployment, while production increased at the rate of 10, 20 and 50 times its former volume, you will agree with me that we can no longer speak the same language as our great grandfathers and even our grandfathers when we speak of full employment. And when we shout at the government, as the Liberals and the NDPs are now doing, criticizing it for not creating jobs, we are becoming increasingly ridiculous because we know, from all those years of experience we have spent here, that the jobs the government created in industry were for the most part temporary. And permanent jobs only confirm this fact. All those temporary jobs did was to modernize the industries and create new lay-offs instead of new permanent jobs. I limit myself strictly to industrial employment, deliberately overlooking employment in the service industries, because the latter always mean a new levy against the taxpayers.
We should stop talking about full employment once and for all and work hard to bring in the best possible system of
December 6, 1979

guaranteed annual income not only for all those who have been fired and replaced by machines, but also for all consumers who have no job and no income based on their production or even on their over-production or the super production capacity of our country.
What do we need to produce today? Is it machinery? Manpower? It is not machinery since it can produce three or four times more than humans. It is not the manpower either since we have over one million unemployed and even more people on social welfare. Could it be consumers, Mr. Speaker? Yet so many families cannot even afford essential food products like milk because it is too expensive. Food costs too much for them. The only thing wrong is the distribution which for most consumers is still based on the percentage of jobs. The logic of this crazy system of ours is quite simple: you don't work so you are entitled to unemployment insurance for a few weeks, but after that, nothing. Production cannot be bought without employment. The only solution that our economists could find was to force quotas on producers and fine them if they ever dared exceeding these quotas. We have that in agriculture. We witnessed and we are still witnessing the most glaring abuses of our times.
While infants and children were denied the milk they needed because their parents were too poor to buy it, farmers were forced to spill the milk of their cows down the drain. I really mean "forced", for if these producers took that milk to the dairy plant they were fined in addition to losing all their production. For instance, if they had $500 worth of milk, they were fined $500 and their production was seized and sold on the market. They were fined for their milk surplus. Such unbelievable contradictions occur because no government so far had the intelligence or the "free" will to create a system that would bring this super production to the consumer who has no access to it simply because he was replaced by a machine. For years we have been looking for means to help the worker in his daily work, and now that we have found some, the most victimized is the worker.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is still serving us the same salad, full employment, always employment, many jobs in order to eat, in order to provide a decent living for all Canadians. It is as preposterous as ever.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that there are not enough intellectuals in the opposition to suggest a distribution system which could operate concurrently with our modern production system. It is not enough to condemn the government's inaction. We have to suggest as soon as possible to this government remedial measures designed to deal with this unacceptable situation for all the Canadian people. Moreover, having been in power for six months, the government has not done much to set the economy afloat and to urge investors to create new jobs, and I repeat, urge.
I was quite pleased to hear the minister this afternoon. I personally agree with him that the government can only create
Employment Strategy
temporary jobs. I have always thought so, because necessarily permanent and well-paid jobs are always created by private enterprise. Today the Prime Minister reminds me of a captain who inherited an old damaged boat years ago and which he is stubbornly trying to lead safely into port with a big hole of $ 12 billion in its hull. I wonder whether he will reach the shore before March 31, 1980.
After all, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public must be told that we are still living with the estimates and liabilities of the former government. There is no need to worry. The estimates for the fiscal year 1979-1980 which began on April 1, 1979 will apply until March 31 of next year. Therefore, we must manage within the current fiscal year ending on March 31. Now, the present government is trying to adapt. The first projections which the Liberals made in April 1979 were of course for the full fiscal year, and I think that the present government is trying to make the necessary adjustments due to the circumstances and current events.
That is why I mentioned a while ago the ship which is going through difficult times. It is much easier to abandon ship and tell the crew: Well, take over, it is your turn to try. Listening to the speeches a while ago, 1 felt it was exactly like that. The former government is blaming the new one for what it failed to do and should have done. But if we blame the present government, we must be fair and praise its efforts over the past six months in the area of consumer protection. To mention only the last two bills, I point out the measure extending the spouse's allowance at the pensioner's death, and Bill C-20 being considered by the Committee of the Whole, which, in addition to creating new jobs, will bring about a reform advocated by members of the Social Credit party of Canada for the past 20 years and allow the deduction of mortgage interest paid by the head of family and home owner. We have been asking for that for the past 20 years. It is not perfect. The Liberals said: You should have given everything and made it universal. Yet, this is a start. The door is now open. That is one way of reducing interest on single family dwellings, and in so doing, creating employment by encouraging young people to become home owners without having to spend 30 years working for big finance.
The Liberals will maintain that they too encouraged housing construction, and even that they helped the average Canadian to own his home, thus creating new jobs. I say to that, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals helped first the owners of multiple unit residential buildings; and since they can avail themselves of all kinds of tax deductions on their properties, so that the money they borrowed cost them almost nothing, thanks to the deductions. As for the average owners, the former government helped them to get into debt for 25 or 30 years and at the rates of interest we know. Just think of it, the rates of interest run up to 15 per cent! Small owners were helped into debt, whi'-1' means that big finance was helped out first and foremost.

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
Today, those small owners find themselves on a dead end street because of the increase in interest rates. That is why Bill C-20 is so timely. And what does the government do, Mr. Speaker? Well, it tells us about finding employment for
105.000	young people from now until the end of March, 1981. It talks about the 44,000 agreements reached with employers right across Canada, which have enabled them to create over
57.000	jobs. To our mind, the Progressive Conservatives do not seem to be efficient enough. They keep talking about tomorrow, while the Liberals spoke of nothing but yesterday and while the unemployed stay with the same problem, that of being self-sufficient with regard to job shortages. Now, about the Canada Works program, this is what we read, and 1 quote:
-the cutbacks . . . that have eliminated hundreds of communities in Canada-
I was somewhat surprised to find that in the motion.
[English)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired. He can continue only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberals very much. For once, they are going to learn to be polite.
In fact, I was a little surprised to find again-1 say it again because of the shouting, but it will calm down-1 was a little surprised to find that again in the motion. In fact, as far as the Canada Works projects are concerned, I had the impression there was no difference compared to previous years in my constituency. When I compare with other hon. members, I think that Roberval received its fair share of the pie. Of course, I should have liked, like all my colleagues, to see a much higher total amount, although it is a million more than last year. I should have preferred to see all 156 projects submitted by the people of Roberval approved. If 1 put myself in the position of the promoters of those projects, I am convinced they all consider their projects acceptable and very urgent. But if there are some criteria to be met, if I consider the local unemployment level compared to the amount allocated by the government to each constituency, it is all right.
The purpose of those projects is still to provide seasonal work for unemployed people who are on the labour market so they can at least accumulate additional stamps to extend their future benefits. Of course, those projects will have to bring permanent benefit to all those municipalities where they are carried out. That is why I encourage and thank the minister who this afternoon gave us some idea of the rearrangement he wanted to make in Canada Works projects. He wants to do more to support private enterprise, as he said, because the real jobs, the permanent jobs, are in the private sector and he can

be sure we will be behind him on this side and we will try to provide more permanent jobs in Canada.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-17, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, and Bill C-18, to amend the Customs Tariff and to make certain amendments to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960 and the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
December 6, 1979 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 6th day of December, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy of the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[ Translation]
And being returned:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber to attend His Excellency the Deputy Governor General, His Excellency
December 6, 1979

was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-17, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to amend the Canada Pension Plan.-Chap. 5.
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Tariff and to make certain amendments to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960 and the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932.-Chap. 6.
Bill S-10, an act to confirm the authority of the Federal District Commission to have acquired certain lands.-Chap. 7.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day the House will now revert to the tabling of documents and statements on motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, under part VI of the National Energy Board Act I should like to table, in both official languages, a copy of the National Energy Board's reasons for decisions pertaining to various applications for the export of natural gas.


GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING NATURAL GAS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House on the government's appraisal of our natural gas situation and on the principal elements of our policy for this important source of energy, including the question of additional exports.
First, I want to talk about the place of natural gas in our energy strategy.
Gas is a Canadian success story. We have a favourable endowment which is responding well to the development efforts of the petroleum industry. It is one of the keys to energy self-sufficiency for our country.
The extent of the resource base in southern Canada has recently been re-evaluated by provincial and national regulatory bodies. Their findings indicate that remaining-recoverable reserves of gas in western Canada are of the order of 72 trillion cubic feet, about one third more than earlier estimates.
Exploration activity in the Beaufort Sea, the Arctic Islands and off our east coast continues to turn up encouraging gas
Energy
discoveries. Of these, the finds in the Sable Island area offer some of the best opportunities for early development.
As was indicated at the first ministers' conference in November, it is the government's intention to create the conditions for natural gas to be available to more Canadians right across the country. Our priority must be to make maximum use of what we have in relative abundance. Every gallon of oil substituted by the use of natural gas contributes to our energy independence.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) indicated following his discussions with Premier Lougheed last week, we are working towards an agreement with Alberta on an incentive price for natural gas. Alberta has already introduced legislation to facilitate the implementation of marketing incentives for new sales of gas.
This will enable gas distributors to expand markets by helping to support the costs of extending service and bring about conversion from other fuels. The gas transmission and distribution industry is responding with ambitious plans for the geographical expansion of markets in Quebec, the maritime provinces and British Columbia.
The substitution of gas for oil fuels in areas of Canada supplied with indigenous oil can help "stretch" our dwindling supplies of conventional crude oil while we get on with the job of developing the oil sands and heavy oils from which the bulk of our western supply may have to come in the 1990s. [Translation]
Gas has an especially important role to play in provinces which are actually or prospectively dependent on costly and insecure sources of overseas oil. The government is determined to reduce this dependence and to secure for Canadians living in these areas a stable and reliable supply of domestic petroleum energy.
The greatest opportunity is presented in the province of Quebec. There, by 1990, additional gas sales could be equivalent to 80,000 barrels daily of oil. Taken together with efforts which the province is making to develop its own hydroelectric resources, this can make an important contribution to achievement of our national self-sufficiency goal.

We will work closely with the provincial governments and the gas distributors to ensure that there is a rapid but orderly conversion to natural gas. I want to extend this undertaking especially to Ontario, whose government has requested an integrated effort to obtain maximum substitution within the physical limitations of the industry.
The federal government believes that very substantial domestic gas market expansion will be accomplished in the next decade as a result of incentive pricing and industry's planning for pipeline expansion.
There is an abundant supply for existing users. Consumers in areas already serviced can switch to gas as quickly as equipment and labour will allow. And the needs of future new

December 6, 1979
Energy
users are assured by the size of our resource base, the vigour of its development and the vigilance of our regulatory authorities.
Now, as to the matter of additional exports in the circumstances 1 have outlined, the government is fully prepared to see the export of those quantities which are surplus to our foreseeable needs for use in Canada. Such exports stimulate exploration, and success could mean more oil as well as gas, and make a valuable contribution to our trade balance.
The export of natural gas is subject to licence of the National Energy Board and approval by the governor in council. The board must be satisfied that the quantity to be exported is surplus to reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada and that the export price is just and reasonable in the public interest.
The National Energy Board, which enjoys the government's complete confidence in carrying out the task entrusted to it by Parliament, has now determined that we have a significant exportable surplus of natural gas. Consequently the board is prepared to issue licences for a total of 3.75 trillion cubic feet.
The board in February, 1979, decided to apply three new tests to applications for additional gas exports. The amount of gas which the board is now prepared to license is very much within the most stringent of these, the "current deliverability test". This means that the surplus to be exported has actually been found and developed. It is not dependent on future discoveries.
The board received applications for the export of 8.8 trillion cubic feet for terms of up to 15 years. The board found it could approve the full amount of applied-for exports only through 1984, with reduced levels through 1987, and no new exports after 1987. The government agrees with the board's findings and will allow the licensing of these exports to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: Shame on you!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The government is satisfied that future Canadian requirements have been appropriately assessed and that the new exports are surplus to these requirements. These exports are short-term in nature and will be of substantial economic benefit to Canada. At today's export price, they are worth $13.2 billion dollars U.S.
I want now to touch on some of the other implications of this decision. Almost half of the new exports are for PanAlberta and will assist the pre-build of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline. In approving the Pan-Alberta exports, the board imposed the requirement that exports be delivered only through pre-built sections of the Foothills pipeline. It further conditioned approval on the understanding that the construction of pre-built facilities will proceed expeditiously for completion of the western leg by November, 1980, and the eastern leg by 1981. Should this not take place it would be the intent of the board to conduct a review of these licences.
Thus it will be up to the sponsors of the Alaska natural gas pipeline to respond with firm commitments for the entire

pipeline. The board's decision clears up any ambiguities that may have existed and thus should give impetus to the completion of the whole system.
The other half of the new exports will be shared by other exporters and these can begin almost immediately after United States approvals are obtained. The Pan-Alberta exports already have conditional approvals from U.S. authorities.
Many Canadians, I know, would be uneasy in today's oil situation about increased exports of any form of energy. However, the government is satisfied that ample provision has been made for expanded Canadian needs for gas, and that the price to be received is fair and just to us. Given the circumstances it would be hard to justify withholding these supplies from our neighbour. As the Prime Minister has said, we are not immune to economic problems faced by our trading partners as a result of oil supply problems. It is in our own interest to help reduce these.
Canada has a great opportunity to move towards energy self-sufficiency. Its achievement will in no small way depend on the wise use of our natural gas resources. This government is responding fully to this challenge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for having sent us a copy of his statement. I regret, however, that contrary to our understanding with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) we did not get it before five o'clock and while we were assured that we would be given two hours this afternoon, it was 5.35 p.m. by the time we received the documents which were tabled.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is better than in the past.


Marc Lalonde: You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult to read such a voluminous document in 35 minutes. This is why our comments should be interpreted in that context and we hope that we will have the opportunity to reconsider this very important matter. Just the same I would like to congratulate sincerely the minister for the quality of his French and for his effort when he made his statement. Let us deal now with the subject matter of the paper.
1 think that today we had another unbelievable statement from this government. I think this statement will be one that Canada will live to regret and that may go down in the history as one of the greatest sellouts we have seen.
To begin with, the government has its priorities all wrong. We are threatened with a shortage of oil in this country. I see members on the other side laughing at the situation. There are many people in Canada today, in eastern Canada in particular, who are not laughing at the situation, who are not joking as are these guys on the other side.
December 6, 1979

This government has its priorities all wrong. We are threatened with a shortage of oil in Canada, and in eastern Canada in particular, as has been admitted by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn). The government has been fiddling for the last few months with huge price increases in oil and gas in the form of direct or disguised taxes, and we are faced with the situation where eastern Canada, the Atlantic provinces, need more natural gas and need a gas pipeline to take gas to the homes and to the industries there.
What we have today is a general statement about the domestic situation, a number of platitudes that we have heard before, and then, to resolve that dramatic and tragic domestic situation, we have an announcement that we will sell 3.7 trillion cubic feet of gas to the United States. That certainly is a clear indication that this government has its priorities all wrong.
There is one good thing in this statement, and that is at the beginning where it tells us that gas is a Canadian success story and its speaks pretty eloquently about the great things that have been done in Canada. I should like to remind the minister that these things have not taken place by themselves. They have taken place through legislation that had been put forward by this government when it was in office-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: -often over filibusters by the opposition.
The minister spoke about the discoveries in the Beaufort Sea, the Arctic islands and off the east coast of Canada. 1 should like to remind the minister that most of those discoveries have been done either with or by Petro-Canada over the last three and a half years-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: -and that Petro-Canada today is the second largest gas producer in this country.


Harvie Andre: So is Pacific Pete.


Marc Lalonde: In terms of the non-renewable resources in this country, gas is the largest non-polluting resource we have and the easiest and cheapest to transport across the country. Therefore, we should be extremely careful and cautious when we talk about exports. We should think in terms of the necessity of conserving it for future generations and of the future needs of our country. The worst thing we could do is to export gas for a fast buck or in order to support a faltering dollar, because then it will mean that down the line we will have to supply our Canadian needs with more expensive and more polluting resources, such as coal for instance. We have to be very cautious about relying upon illusory, short-term gains.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 would remind hon. members that we listened with politeness and courtesy to the minister. I would hope they would extend the same courtesy to this side.
Energy


Yvon Pinard: They are not taking this seriously.


Marc Lalonde: And I hope they will take this question seriously, because it is very serious.
So in the short term we may increase the value of our dollar but we might very well diminish the competitiveness of our farmers, fishermen, and our manufacturing sector, by artificially propping up the dollar in the short term and finding ourselves less competitive in the world.
Therefore, if we have to have a bias, our bias as Canadians should be against any gas exports outside Canada. But let us assume that it might be possible to export surplus gas at this time. That should take place only on the basis of an overriding national interest, and only with the guarantee that Canada is getting the maximum advantage out of such a deal. In particular, no long-term commitments should be made.
In the past we know that, on the basis of information that has proven erroneous subsequently, Canada has exported gas and oil which now we wish had not been exported and had remained in Canada. It is therefore important that we approach the question of exports with utmost caution. Obviously that applies to gas in particular. It does not apply to oil since we do not have a surplus of oil, even though the Prime Minister last January made a generous offer to Japan of a non-existent oil surplus during his famous world tour.
So far as the statement of the minister is concerned, we note the vagueness of the statement about the building and completion of the pipeline which is essential. It leaves open the door to delays in the pipeline construction by extending the authorization of exports over a period of seven years and the possibility of reviewing the authorization after exports have started, therefore authorizing exports before the commitment for the building of the line has been made.
There is no word in this statement regarding swaps, and nothing about the eastern Canadian situation, the building of the Quebec and Maritime pipeline, and the possibility of exports to the northeastern states. In our view, exports of natural gas to the United States should be authorized only on the basis of, first of all, an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline. Everything has to be signed, sealed and delivered, particularly the financing plan and the financing guarantees, before we start exporting one cubic foot of gas out of this country to the United States.
Second, there must be an arrangement for swaps in this agreement with the United States so that down the line, if Canada were to need natural gas, we would be in a position to obtain natural gas from the Alaska gas pipeline which we might need in exchange for the gas we are now providing to the Americans. That would be the second point.
The third point is with regard to revenues arising out of gas exports to the United States. They should be used to ensure the initiation and completion of the Quebec and Maritime gas pipeline so that eastern Canada would be fully served in terms of gas service and so that people in the maritimes and eastern Quebec would be assured of getting natural gas at a reasonable price.
2102

December 6, 1979
Energy
Fourth, 1 find it unbelievable that the minister says it is up to the sponsors of the pipeline to come up with firm commitments for the entire pipeline, leaving out the United States government in this matter. Negotiations have taken place on this matter under the previous government with the U.S. government, and we should have a commitment from the U.S. government in this respect, as well as from private industry. Experience should have shown us that we should not be satisfied with relying only on the sponsors of the Alaska natural gas pipeline for the future building of the whole pipeline.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Marc Lalonde: The government opposite is even ready to privatize the whole of the country and to give it to the United States companies, without even dealing with the U.S. government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: The last point concerns the fact that we have a commitment for seven years on this sale. Our preference, based on discussions that have taken place with the industry and the community in general, has been for five-year agreements on exports. We are surprised that the government has been considering seven-year agreements.
Because of all these factors which are not referred to in this document and which, in our view, are fundamental to the export of such large quantities of gas, we believe that the government does not have sufficient guarantees from the United States authorities and from the U.S. purchasers of gas to protect our security in the future.
This statement is completely unacceptable to us as the opposition, as 1 am sure it is to the people of Canada. It does nothing on the building of the entire Alaska pipeline. It does nothing on the question of the Quebec and Maritime gas pipeline. It does nothing on the question of swaps. For these reasons we are very distressed and very dissatisfied with this report.
[ Translation]
In conclusion, I should like to make it clear that the opposition is deeply dissatisfied with this statement announcing the sale of a huge quantity of natural gas to the United States without getting in exchange any guarantees that Canada's natural gas supply will be secure or that eastern Canada, and more particularly eastern Quebec, will be in a position to get natural gas at a competitive price in the foreseeable future. In our opinion, once again the government has got its priorities ail wrong. While we are threatened with a gas and heating oil shortage in eastern Canada, the government announces today a big natural gas sale to the U.S. without having dealt with the crisis and without having provided any answers to the domestic problems of vital interest and concern to the Canadian people.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party 1 want to say at the outset that we are unalterably opposed to this decision to export more natural gas to the United States. We consider this export decision shocking and irresponsible.
I find it utterly incredible that in one breath the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) is stating the real possibility of imminent fuel shortages, and in the other breath, his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), is approving future and greater exports of natural gas to the United States. Surely any responsible government, aware of the precarious fuel supply situation we are in this winter, would look toward the future of the energy security of Canada and keep those domestic natural gas supplies here in Canada for future use by Canadians.
In a nutshell, it appears to me that the government has put the earning of some fast bucks, and reducing our trade deficit through these exports, ahead of the long-term energy security of Canadians. I think really what has happened here is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is making energy policy. The Minister of Finance is concerned about the government's deficit and the state of the trade balance. He is looking toward the next election and taking the easy way out by approving these natural gas exports. We are giving away our trump card; we are selling out our birthright. It is incredibly shortsighted, given the domestic and international energy supply situation, that this government, on the eve of an energy crisis, would be approving these massive exports of natural gas to the United States.
Before I get into the critique of why I think this should not take place, 1 want to address a few comments to what 1 consider the utter duplicity and hypocrisy of the spokesman of the Liberal party. It was only last February when the National Energy Board, in a preliminary report, was talking about possible exports of two trillion cubic feet, that not one member of the Liberal party, then the government, rose in opposition to such a concept. Yet we hear tonight from the spokesman of the Liberal party that they have done a flip-flop and are opposed to this export. Indeed, the former minister of finance, in his last budget, was supportive of natural gas exports. I can only conclude that the Liberals are utterly devoid of any intellectual honesty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: On the matter of why the government is approving these exports, it said that it bases its decisions on the recommendations of that reputable agency, in the eyes of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the National Energy Board.
Every Canadian knows that the credibility of the National Energy Board is shot. Its track record at predicting supplies of energy in this country is as bad as the private oil industry itself. Only in 1971 we were told that we had over 900 years of
December 6, 1979

supply of natural gas. Then, as late as 1975, the National Energy Board predicted that we would be running short by 1985. Then, of course, when the push was on by the industry for a Mackenzie Valley pipeline, the NEB reduced its prediction and said that we would have a shortfall in 1983. Now we are told that we have a surplus and we can export.
In light of that dismal record of prediction by the NEB, surely the government should be proceeding with caution. The NEB admits that domestic gas demand will outstrip production in just 12 years. Of course this is using a new formula which reduces the estimates of reserves for our future needs.
Even the minister's own department, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, cautions against allowing exports of natural gas. They are saying that we should be more conservative in our surplus estimates; if we are to err, it should be on the side of safety.
Surely we have a brilliant opportunity here, by retaining these gas supplies, to substitute natural gas for oil in this country. 1 thought that was one of the key elements of this government's policy which would move us toward energy self-sufficiency, that is, natural gas substitution. Yet when we hear from the applicants for the pipeline to eastern Canada, the Q & M pipeline, their prediction indicates that they foresee a demand of two trillion cubic feet in excess of what the National Energy Board predicts for eastern Canada. In light of this government's commitment to substitute gas for oil, in light of the company's own projections of demands in eastern Canada, surely the government should not approve these exports. Indeed we have an opportunity as well to be developing a petro-chemical industry in eastern Canada, if we retain these reserves here for us.
I should like to quote for the minister from the 1979 policy paper which was put out by his department. It reads as follows:
The security of supply argument for retaining gas in Canada for domestic consumers provides a persuasive counter-argument to the proposals for rapid expansion of exports.
It appears to me the Tories have decided that it is more important to export gas to enable Californians to heat their swimming pools, than to enable Canadians to heat their homes in the years ahead. I consider that utterly shameful for a government which claims to represent the Canadian interest.
My leader predicted last week that the government would approve this gas export which represents a 50 per cent increase over current levels. I can only conclude that this government's energy policy is jeopardizing Canada's long-term energy security, by selling off inexpensive gas now in Alberta, in return for imposing on Canada in the future expensive Arctic and far northern gas, which will be at least four times the price of this gas that we will be exporting to the United States.
Their talk of self-sufficiency is a sham; their actions belie their promises. In this approval of natural gas exports, we see where the Tories really are in terms of an energy policy. It is nothing less than a continuation of the Liberal policy of selling out our natural resources. It is one step closer to a continental
Energy
energy policy. It is nothing short of treachery for future generations of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a question of the minister. I should like to know from him whether, in the export sale he announced tonight, he intends also to include in the bargain for export his mother and his father, his grandmother and his grandfather, his daughter and his son, his granddaughter and his grandson; all the children, sons and daughters-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Charles L. Caccia: -and all the grandsons and granddaughters of the 23 million Canadians whose heritage he is supposed to protect? Will he answer this question, please?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I can only say that 1 feel very sorry for the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) representing, as he does, the flip-flop position that the Liberal party has taken in respect of the matter of exports. 1 have to agree with my friend across the way, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), that there is no political morality in the Liberal party today and they are prepared to take any position in opposition to a progressive step. What I want to say to the hon. member is simply this. This opportunity for Canadians to expand their energy potential is a challenge which this government will accept, and a challenge which this government will carry out. 1 want to tell the hon. member that his position-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps he would like to be quiet and just listen to my answer. I listened to his question.


An hon. Member:: Then answer the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 say that the position is quite clear. This particular export application is one that is acceptable in relation to the foreseeable demand in Canada even with the extensive expansion that we anticipate in Canada under this particular government. The hon. member is misleading the House when he suggests anything else. He is simply not basing his case on fact. The fact is that we are looking ahead to future generations, unlike the previous government which did not plan and did not in any sort of context have an energy policy. We have a national energy policy which involves very great expansion, indeed, in terms of natural gas across this country. This particular application is very supportive of that objective.
The two points the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) mentioned, suggested that in fact this export was somehow not supportive of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. He is completely wrong. If he will look at the statement I made today, and study it carefully, he will see the condition upon which the Pan-Alberta application has been approved. It is

December 6, 1979
Energy
conditional upon the pipeline going through to completion. He simply has no basis of fact in that regard. The second aspect is that he suggests it does nothing in respect of providing natural gas to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is, of course, volunteering more information than he has been asked to provide, for which 1 am sure he is to be commended, but I think I have to confine him to answering the questions that have been asked.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, 1 find this additional export permit a very, very dangerous thing. It disturbs me a great deal. I am very much concerned about a document we received this spring in June, or somewhere about that time, which had reference to the 25-A1 formula. That formula involves 25-years' prediction, taking next year's demand, and that took us in terms of natural gas only to 1992-93, which is about 12 or 13 years. That is where the supply and demand line crossed.
1 just wonder what has happened in the course of three or four months that makes it possible for us to export additional amounts of gas, given only 12 or 13 years' supply and not 25 years. This is a very misleading figure. We think that 25 years means 25 years of assured supply when it means only 12 years of assured supply, particularly if those figures this spring were correct. I would like to know what the difference is now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. The National Energy Board is not basing its recommendation on the formula which the hon. member has presented to the House. The fact is that this is one of the tests used by the National Energy Board. That board uses the most conservative estimate with regard to the actual reserves we have on hand, and the availability, not on the basis of demand down the road, but on the basis of our reserves we can put our hands on. The fact is that, in anticipation, the Energy Board has looked ahead to the foreseeable future, not only to the existing demand for natural gas here in Canada, but also to the expanded use that is contemplated by our particular policy. That represents a very substantial conversion to natural gas.
The policy we enunciated in the course of our energy package is one that is going to change consuming patterns in Canada in respect of natural gas very substantially. The policy is forward looking and it will in fact expand gas markets in Canada. The National Energy Board makes it very clear, through statistics, that all those assessments that have been put forward do contemplate our future demand.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, because this is extremely disturbing, 1 want to make sure that the figures we were given in June, and I guess they were put together during 1978 and early 1979, no longer obtain, and that the 25-year formula will not end up with the lines crossing in 1992, but that we have a lot more gas than that and we will have a new set of figures that will show the crossover point well on into the next century. Is that what the minister is saying?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, what 1 am saying is that the National Energy Board has updated its information regarding

the availability of natural gas in Canada. In fact there has been substantial natural gas proven over and above that indicated in the last report. I am satisfied that-


An hon. Member:: For how many years?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What I am saying is that on the 25 times basis the hon. member refers to, we have sufficient additional supplies and these facts have been taken into account. We have additional known reserves in western Canada quite apart from the discoveries to which the hon. member for Outremont refers. On the basis of this we are only allowing a short-term export for four years, after which there is a diminishing of the amount of export that will be allowed. 1 think the facts presented by the National Energy Board substantiate the validity of this particular decision.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, 1 am a bit disturbed by what I am hearing from the minister. I have seen the document that was published early last summer which showed the crossover of demand and supply in 1992-93. The minister is telling us that in the last nine months there has been such a substantial increase in known and proven reserves that the demand supply no longer crosses over in 1992-93. 1 would ask him, if that is the case, precisely where does the new revised demand supply condition cross over; is it the year 2000, or the year 2010? Where does this happen?
1 do not think it is good enough for the minister to stand up and say that we have new estimates now, new known reserves which are going to take us way down the line and things will be fine for future generations of Canadians. That is simply not good enough. 1 would like to have the minister-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you ask a question?


John Leslie Evans: Had we had this statement more than half an hour before this event we probably could, but 1 would like the minister to tell us the answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 can only reiterate that if the hon. member will look at the report and the statistics that are there, he will see that they have been revised.


An hon. Member:: Tell us now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to hear the answer I am prepared to give it to him.


An hon. Member:: I want to hear it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Does the hon. member want to hear the answer? What 1 am saying is that the National Energy Board projections have been updated. They have in fact extended the time when the supply demand crossover occurs, and this is contained in the report itself. On the basis of these export applications, 1 am suggesting we have more than sufficient evidence that these particular export licences are in the national interest of Canada, and provide a number of initiatives for

December 6, 1979

even further expansion and development of our natural gas supply throughout Canada, not just in the western part.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the minister has obviously read the report; at least I assume he has read it. If he has read it, 1 would like him to tell us right here and now, not to go and read the report, but exactly in what year that demand supply condition in fact occurs or finds itself going negative. I would like him to tell us that this massive conversion program he will be stimulating in eastern Canada will not end up in a situation in which we have all these Canadians converting, and then five to eight or ten years from now we will not have the gas. 1 want to hear an answer to the first question: when exactly does this happen?
Second, will the conversion program that the minister is going to bring forward, and with which 1 agree, have any effect on those figures he is going to give us now?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a copy of the table of statistics available to me at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Obviously the information is in the report which will be made available to the hon. member. I can tell him, however, that we accept the assessment of the National Energy Board, which takes into account massive conversions to natural gas over the next ten years. This will be induced by the policies we are bringing forward for incentive gas prices.
I do not know what the hon. member wants me to do. I can provide him with the statistics he asked for, after the adjournment of the House.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister several questions. Have any studies been done by the National Energy Board or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the development of a petrochemical industry in western Canada, using our gas? This would provide large numbers of jobs in a high technology industry, rather than exporting this large amount of supposedly surplus natural gas, as the minister has announced.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question, that somehow the two are mutually exclusive. Naturally, we are investigating this aspect of the matter, both in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and my own department.
1 reiterate that all the factors are taken into consideration. These export applications and the licences to be granted, are ones which arc in surplus to the foreseeable Canadian needs. I reiterate that, but if the hon. member docs not want to accept it, that is his problem. The facts are quite clear. It is going to be a great stimulus to Canadian industry in terms of additional exploration and development. This is a very positive step being taken by this government to ensure the development of natural gas and oil across Canada, in western Canada, and throughout the frontier region.
Energy


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, section 3 of the Northern Pipeline Act states very clearly that the minister and the National Energy Board must be satisfied that financing has been obtained for the whole pipeline, not just the pipeline from Alberta Gas to the U.S. border, but the pipeline from Alaska down. When our cheap gas is gone, there will then be a substitute from Alaska.
in the Northern Pipeline Committee, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp suggested the possibility of the government changing this condition. On November 22, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret) stated that he is only now in the process of determining the specific criteria to satisfy the government.
What assurances do Canadians have that the whole pipeline from Alberta down will be built so that, at some point, when we have sold our cheap Alberta gas to the United States, there will, in fact, be a gas line from Alaska to supply our needs when present gas sources in Alberta have been used up?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in my statement I pointed out that the particular application from Pan-Alberta, takes into account the government's concern with providing impetus for the completion and financing of the Alaska gas pipeline. The application and licences granted in Alberta are conditional upon that project going ahead. We in Canada have to demonstrate that we support the project and that it will go ahead. And in this particular application the licences were granted on the basis that the project will go ahead. As far as this particular matter is concerned, we are taking steps to support completion of that pipeline on schedule.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will be understood that the opposition would be regarded as irresponsible at a time when increasing problems have been noted in the petroleum supply situation, if it did not question the government's action. For months we have asked about the supply situation and have been told that it is tight and getting tighter. We can see shortages ahead, Mr. Speaker. We would be remiss if we did not question the basis of the information that is given to us about natural gas.
We do not know the date of the crossover, and it is not only that which is at stake, but also the cost. We are aware of the fact that out of tight lock formations you can get more gas but, of course, it becomes more expensive. There are two parallel questions here-the cost of gas and the amount that is supplied. At a certain point it would be possible to get very expensive gas and say the reserves are there. Can the minister give us the basis for the statement that 72 trillion cubic feet are available? Does this mean gas that is easily available, or is it gas that requires tight lock formation and so on?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the 72 trillion cubic feet referred to is proven reserves, accessible and available for exploitation in Canada. The question of supply of petroleum products and the question of export of surplus are two different matters altogether. In this application, all domestic requirements are taken into account with respect to the expan-

December 6, 1979
Energy
sion of use of natural gas. This is surplus to domestic needs and is clearly demonstrated by the proven, deliverable reserves that we have. The reserves I spoke about in western Canada are exclusive of other discoveries and ultimate reserves in frontier areas, offshore or the east coast.
In regard to the application, we are saying that it is not going to affect the supply we have in Canada in any way. It is surplus to the anticipated expansion of natural gas throughout Canada-to Vancouver Island, to Quebec, to the maritimes, and the expansion of natural gas in the province of Ontario. We have sufficient reserves to go ahead, on the basis of the statistics I have given to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not propose to allow hon. members a second round of questioning. I think 1 should conclude the questioning with a supplementary from the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde), and I thought I saw the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose).


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I did not get a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) put his question, I did not think it was deserving of a supplementary, and 1 do not think he should have a chance to persuade me otherwise now.
I think I should conclude the questioning with a supplementary from the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence, a question by the hon. member for Outremont, and then the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody. That ought to be a fair distribution.


Mr.   de Corneille@: I should like to know what kind of formula is proposed for the price we will charge the United States. Second, is the minister prepared to consider building in the concept of swaps?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The price is under constant review by the National Energy Board, Mr. Speaker. At the present time the going price is $3.45 per thousand cubic feet. This will be reviewed in light of the equivalent cost of energy in the United States. I have asked the NEB to look into the process of more quickly reflecting increasing and changing costs for natural gas, and setting a price so that there will be more sensitivity to changes on the international scene and in the United States.
These licences are for the short term. They are explicit for a four-year period and will diminish substantially over the last three years, to 1987. There is great benefit. It will bring new activity in terms of exploration and development in Canada. It will have a substantial economic benefit to Canada. In the over-all picture it is a forward move as far as we are concerned, one which will bring terrific benefits in terms of economic development in Canada in the development of our resources for our national energy self-sufficiency objective.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have one question which will be followed by a supplementary.

First, the decision that has been announced today is a decision by the government, not by the National Energy Board. It is not good enough to rely on the Energy Board. The cabinet and the minister have made the decision.
I find it incredible that the minister seems to refuse to tell us, in the estimation of the government, when the demand for gas will be less than the supply of gas. That appears to me so fundamental to a decision to export gas that it should be elementary. My simple question to the minister is this: please tell us, is it the year 2009, 2010 or 1992, as we heard in June? Surely there is a date. Please tell us when, in the estimation of the government which made the decision-and the minister who made the decision-on what basis was it made? What year are we going to start running short of gas?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member did not want to mislead the House. The year of the crossover on the present estimates is 1997.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that will be extremely important in the future debate. It certainly indicates the decision that has been announced today is even more incorrect than anyone could anticipate.
My supplementary question to the minister is this. He knows that the previous government indicated to the United States that no authorization for any gas exports would take place unless we had an iron-clad commitment to build the whole pipeline, and second, unless we had the possibility for swaps. It meant in effect the possibility of getting back, in the future, from the Alaskan fields an equivalent amount of gas that would have been sold to the Americans in the next few years to help them out of their present crisis. This would fully preserve Canadian security of supply down the line and make sure that even though we were willing to help our American friends in the short term, we would be in a position to be fully protected down the line. Why has the minister not kept to those basic conditions that had been put by the previous government?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that I am not announcing the final step in terms of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. I am talking in terms of export licences. The specific question here is with respect to the Pan-Alberta application, is that it is conditional upon the whole line going ahead. It is conditional upon that. It is one element with respect to the negotiations that are going ahead. It is one signal with respect to the negotiations that are going on about the Alaska natural gas pipeline. I reiterate the fact that 1 am not here to announce another project.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, as a regulatory body, I think the National Energy Board is about as politically independent or is as impervious to government influences as is the CTC or the CRTC because their ability to predict the future indicates they try to view it through a very cloudy crystal ball at best.
The main gas producers, except perhaps for Petro-Canada, are foreign owned. At least some of the additional revenues-I believe the figure was $13 billion-flowing to these companies
December 6, 1979

will end up as dividends to shareholders and create a problem in terms of balance of payment deficits, because they will be flowing out of the country. 1 ask the minister whether any calculations have been done as to the extent of these, because obviously there will be this cash outflow, and whether there has been any consideration of how this will affect our balance of payments deficit? How much of the $13 billion revenue will come to Canada, and how much will go out on the basis of windfall profits to multinationals?
If I have an opportunity to ask a supplementary, I will go further, but it seems to me there are two or three questions wrapped up in the one above. Only four?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there is very substantial Canadian-owned participation in the natural gas industry. The hon. member just does not want to acknowledge that, but that is in fact the case. It is a substantial one and there is a substantial economic benefit coming to Canada. There will be revenues generated, taxation and revenues available to the Government of Canada in order to carry out our national energy policy. It is quite clear that with respect to any transaction that goes on one could get involved in deciding, I suppose, how much money we will possibly see leave the country in future.
In terms of the exploration by the natural gas industry, and in terms of the investment, that it has reinvested that has been made evident by some recent statistics 1 have tabled in this House. I am confident the lion's share of this money will be reinvested. Profits realized will be invested and in fact there is a substantial and important Canadian ingredient in the industry that is going to be affected by this decision and will enhance Canada's future and prosperity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock this evening.
At 7.08 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Francis Fox (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes):
That this House deplores the complete inaction of the government, after six months in office, with regard to the creation of jobs, regrets the inhumane
Employment Strategy
cutbacks in the Canada Works program that have eliminated hundreds of communities across Canada that have been suffering from high levels of unemployment and condemns the government for its failure to date to bring forward a comprehensive employment strategy for the coming year.
Mr. Paul McCrossan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this motion because I think nothing could better illustrate the differences between the new government and the old government in our approaches to solving the unemployment problems in our country. Canada is a rich country with virtually unlimited potential, yet we have seen over the last three years one of the highest rates of unemployment in the western world.
This unemployment is particularly concentrated among our young people. At the same time as we have seen this heavy unemployment develop among our young, we have also seen industries on which our growth should be based curtailed because of a lack of skilled workers, workers which we have, too often, had to import from other countries. How could the previous government see this situation of our young people being deprived of their future develop and not attack the real problem? I do not want to suggest that the previous government was not spending money on job creation-far from it. At times they almost threw money at the problem.
However, I do want to emphasize that the vast amounts of money spent served in large measure solely to increase the deficit, rather than to develop permanent opportunities for our unemployed or to build infrastructures such as harbours on which our future wealth could be based. We all remember the previous government's attempt at addressing the serious problem of our young people through the Opportunities for Youth Program. This was a very Christian program. The government's approach was right from the Bible-if youth wanted money, the government told them, "Ask, and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Unfortunately, the government found not that the "meek shall inherit the earth", but that the wily will find out how to get the money.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the previous government had better plans than that one. The motion today refers to "inhumane cutbacks in Canada Works programs" and refers to the suffering caused in many areas of the country through our government's actions in not extending the programs next year in all areas of the country.
Last year the total budget for Canada Works was approximately $175 million. Money was spent in all provinces regardless of how prosperous those provinces were. In addition, the budget for Young Canada Works was $62 million.
Let me deal with Young Canada Works for a moment. It would be useful to review the plan and what it was supposed to do. The objective of the program was to reduce student unemployment through useful work experience, by providing financial resources to fund projects whose objectives or method of operation contribute to the benefit of non-participants in the

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
following ways-stimulate job creation in the private sector, identifying permanent employment opportunities, providing services, or improving the environment.
As 1 said, every area of the country and every riding in the country received money for Young Canada Works last year. York-Scarborough was no exception. I was told last year that $50,000 would be spent in York-Scarborough on Young Canada Works. That money would be spent solely because there were enough submissions for the money. I would like to review just how the money was spent in my riding, because I think we have to look at just how inhumane the cutbacks could be, and how much suffering would be caused if the money were not spent the same way next year.
There were eight projects approved in York-Scarborough. The number one priority project was called "Save our streams". This was a group of three students who wished to encourage other groups to "adopt" a stream in York-Scarborough. Just where does "adopting" a stream fit in our long-term economic plans? Well, the stream might be sick and, if so, this project on which $5,500 was spent would prepare an extensive bibliography on streams and how to rehabilitate them. As the application notes, "Considerable time would be involved in compiling a bibliography but it would be extremely helpful to anyone interested in such topics". I do not for a moment want to suggest that the young Canadians who took part in this project ripped the people of Canada off, but I do find it incredible that under the previous government $50,000 had to be spent in York-Scarborough and that the most worth-while project the previous government could find to spend it on was "to adopt" a stream.
The second priority project approved in York-Scarborough was called "Creative Learning Experience". This program, which cost $7,000, was to provide arts and crafts, gymnastics, cookouts, carnivals, day trips and daily swim lessons to children with learning disabilities.
The third priority project, costing $8,100, related to Metis and non-status Indians in York-Scarborough. Now, my riding is the largest riding in the country in terms of population and has a large ethnic mix. We have significant Italian, Greek, Chinese, East Indian populations. In fact we probably have someone in York-Scarborough from every place in the world. However, I must admit I was surprised when I learned of the existence of a Metis and Non-Status Indian Association in my riding, and even more amazed when they applied for a grant to "research and document available information on the marketing of native handicrafts and souvenirs". Mr. Speaker, I accept this as a serious project, but I think you will agree it is a little far from the mainstream of economic life in Metropolitan Toronto.
The fourth project was called "Summer Outreach". It was designed to train library staff in story-telling for children, as well as to put on puppet shows for children.
The fifth project was called "Joie de Theatre". It received $8,400. These six students proposed to improvise a bilingual play according to the style of the Commedia del Arte, a 16th Century improvisational mode of theatre in Europe. The play
[Mr. McCrossan.)
to be created and performed would "utilize the characters, the exuberant gesture and the humour of the Commedia del Arte in a series of scenarios which deal with the French and English cultures in Canada. The scenarios will be used to acquaint French and English speakers with one another's culture. Audiences will learn colloquialisms as well." 1 think that means they will swear at each other.
The sixth project was called "Accent on First Base". As I recall from watching Abbott and Costello, "Who's on first, what's on second, and I don't know who is on third." These three students received $6,200 to hand out questionnaires to day-care centres across Metropolitan Toronto. The questionnaires were given to staff, parents and children. Parents would be asked to describe what type of activity they would like their children to participate in. Children would tell their favourite activity. After the survey, the data would be collected, analysed, and categorized within a manual.
The seventh priority project for $6,400 was entitled "Safety in Action", involving four students who would try to increase knowledge of water safety, life-saving and first-aid, through conducting assemblies and workshops in schools, camps, etc.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, my eighth priority project involving three people for $2,900 was to "Discovery Centre '79" and was to enable mentally retarded young people "to be physically active, to socialize, to learn, to explore and generally to have a good time during their summer holidays."
That was how the $50,000 was spent in my riding last year. The projects met the objectives. They reduced summer unemployment. They provided work experience. They provided financial resources, and all of the projects could contribute to the benefit of non-participants. Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today suggests that we are inhumane in cutting back on the funds for projects like these. It further suggests that we will cause suffering by not continuing these job-creation programs.
1 wish to stress that I did not edit the list. I outlined every single worth-while project that was approved in my riding. Is this the way we should be spending our money to solve Canada's unemployment problems? Is this the best use we can make of $62 million across the country? Members in the opposition are nodding their heads. They contend it is. The position of the official opposition is that in spite of the fact that the unemployment rate in York-Scarborough is 2 per cent, money must be spent on job-creation programs of this type.
The approach of the government is to get the money out into the areas of the country where jobs are scarce and where much more worth-while projects can be found. What our country needs is projects which employ people. To build for the future of Canada we feel we need to concentrate our efforts in areas of most need.
So far I have spoken about Young Canada Works. Let me now turn to our analysis of the Canada Works Program. In spite of the fact that unemployment was only 2 per cent, the minimum amount which could be allocated to York-Scarbor-
December 6, 1979

ough was $150,000 under the old rules. In July we announced that the Canada Works Program would be discontinued after the fourth and final phase, and would, in that final phase, be limited to those areas of the country with particularly severe seasonal unemployment problems. The decision to discontinue Canada Works after phase IV reflects the determination of the government to move toward an approach which will result in increased long-term employment in the private sector.
Members who have been involved with the Canada Works program over the last few years, know full well that the short-term employment created by Canada Works and other similar programs has not met longer-term needs. We need more than a band-aid approach to stimulate economic development in Canada.
Programs such as Canada Works were known to a great many people as make-work programs. They provided people with jobs for short periods of time; but they were jobs that were not meaningful. Unemployed Canadians do not want make-work programs; they want economically meaningful jobs that will allow them to make a real commitment to the Canadian economy.
One of the uses to which employment development programs should be put is to provide job experience that can be usefully transferred to other jobs. However, what happened with Canada Works in some cases is that people went from work on a Canada Works program to unemployment insurance, and then to work on another Canada Works program. We want to stop that kind of cycle and provide opportunities for people to move on to rewarding jobs in the private sector.
In some cases, Canada Works did provide communities with lasting benefits in terms of new or upgraded facilities such as tourist, harbour, or recreational facilities. However, it did not provide for projects which have contributed to longer-term economic development. Canada Works proved inadequate to combat structural, long-term unemployment. Canada Works was found particularly inadequate to support the long-term economic development our native people urgently required. It is for this reason that, when the decision to cancel Canada Works was made, it was also decided to make considerably increased moneys available to native communities through the Local Employment Assistance Program, or LEAP.
LEAP is a permanent program which provides long-term funding-for a one-year start-up phase plus three years of operation-for projects. These projects either assist in the development of an enterprise which will provide ongoing employment for project participants, or serve as a method of preparing people for regular jobs by giving them the opportunity to learn social and work skills in a supportive environment.
This fiscal year across Canada native communities are receiving $38.4 million through LEAP and Canada Works. In addition, during this year of transition from Canada Works to LEAP and in recognition of the fact that good, long-term proposals for economic development take time to prepare, the
Employment Strategy
LEAP criteria have been modified, for native communities, to allow LEAP allocations to be used during this transitional period to fund short-term activities where they relate to the long-term economic development of the native community.
Canada Works projects did result, in some cases, in permanent jobs. However, these were exceptions, for Canada Works had an extensive array of checks and regulations to ensure that people did not do anything which would earn a profit or create needs. Sometimes Canada Works projects did create needs, some of which had to be met by provincial or municipal levels of government which, quite frankly, were not too pleased to take over projects which the federal government had started and then abandoned. However, in other cases the requirements not to create needs meant that long-term, economically viable jobs which provided real goods and services were rare.
This government is committed to the creation of enough jobs to ensure a satisfactory level of economic growth to allow Canadians to make their own distinctive contributions to society. We know that if we want real jobs that will provide us with economic growth potential, we must look to the private sector.
Our task as a government is to bring forth initiatives which will encourage the creation of those jobs and encourage the private sector to play its full role in developing new employment opportunities. To that end we will, in next week's budget, be proposing incentives for private employers to provide up to
105.000	jobs for young people. In addition, we will provide youth with training they need to meet the needs of Canadian industry and establish a national youth service corps.
The national youth service corps will differ from the employment development initiatives of the past in that it will be targeted to those young people who most require help in finding work.
This government is committed to directing the money available for employment development to those areas where it is most needed and where it will do the most good. As hon. members know, we are examining the concept of universality in our social programs, and the same idea extends to our employment development programs. Youth unemployment is a problem of vast proportions in Canada, but certainly not every person between the ages of 15 and 24 needs our help. We will limit programs like the national youth service corps to those young people who can most benefit from them.
During the first three phases, Canada Works created
107.000	short-term jobs at a cost of approximately $510 million. We think we can use the money available for employment development to create real jobs in the private sector which will last and lead to the creation of still more jobs. In that way we hope to invest our money more wisely than has been done in the past.
Finally, 1 would like to underline the fact that my own riding did not receive an allocation for the final phase of Canada Works as a result of our government's decision, and 1 can see the reason why.
We need more than a band-aid approach to stimulate economic activity. We need more than simply throwing money
2110

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
at problems. We need to compare the alternatives and choose the best ones to use our scarce resources. We need to ask piercing questions. How does spending money to "adopt" a stream compare with spending money to train a tool and die maker? Our government is determined to increase the level of our critical skills training. Already legislation is before the House to provide greater flexibility with adult occupational training. How important is it to learn what games parents want their children to play compared with providing tax credits to stimulate permanent employment in the private sector?
While all of the projects approved in my riding had some value, these are days of scarce resources, days in which the people of Canada expect us to cut down on the prodigious levels of government spending embarked on by the Liberal government.
The people of Canada believe in Canada. Our young people want to realize the potential of Canada. We owe it to them to spend their money as if it were our own, and that means we must put it where it will be of most use.
The opposition claims that the cutting back of these types of programs is inhumane and causes suffering in Canada. 1 contend that not allocating our scarce resources in the most effective way to create jobs which Canadians want, deserve and need, would indeed be inhumane and cause far more suffering.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: I thank my colleagues on all sides of the House.
This afternoon the minister made the statement that the programs he advances will work in the next six months. It has taken us six months to come this far, and what the motion states very clearly is that there has been inaction. That is to say, this new government has not moved us any way except to go with the programs which we initiated early in our mandate, programs which seemingly were pretty good for the time because there was a decline in unemployment, until this last month. If we are to believe what the minister says, in the sixth month of any kind of program we are going to have some kind of a result. Now that we have had this government for six months, we see that we are already going downhill.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) also spoke this afternoon and made all kinds of criticisms, but it seemed that he took up most of his time talking about the programs the Liberals had brought in and not at all discussing the programs which are to be forthcoming from this government. It seems to me that the only solution he had was the age-old solution of letting government take it all over, letting the government do it all, and letting the people just sit back and not worry. Well, that is not the answer of the Liberal party and, unlike the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) who just spoke, we happen to believe in the decisions of the people of Canada. In other words, we are not afraid to take money, put it into the hands of the citizens, and

let them decide in their own communities what is best for them. It is a matter of trusting them, and we do indeed trust the people in our constituencies and the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: 1 maintain that the Canada Works program was good for Canada and is good for Canada-


Francis Fox: And will be.


Gilbert Parent: -because it creates the short-term jobs which we are looking for. In the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox), earlier this afternoon, the Phase IV program as announced by the minister was a disappointment to the unemployed of the country, but it is also an indication to virtually thousands of people throughout the whole of Canada that their federal government no longer wishes to work with them in reducing local unemployment while meeting their community needs.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Gilbert Parent: Once again, this is a reflection of a change in philosophy. The Conservative party is known as the party of the flip-flop. It has changed so much and in so many ways that it is even doing political somersaults.


An hon. Member:: Look at the polls.


Gilbert Parent: This is brought out time and time again by the esteem with which the people of Canada now hold it, as was brought out earlier this week.
We know that the U.S. economy faces a serious slowdown and that the Conference Board in Canada predicts an extremely low rate of growth. The federal government seems to be pursuing policies which will enhance neither growth nor employment. Witness the high interest rates, the cancellation of the movement of government agencies to areas of slow growth, and the over-all reduction in allocations.
Perhaps the hon. member for York-Scarborough, who spoke earlier, has reason to believe that these people "adopted" a stream. I think we must take a look at some of those programs. He seems to imply that the eight programs that were allocated in his riding under the Young Canada Works were really of no use at all. What he is saying is that the young people in his community received no worth-while benefits or experience from the programs which they had decided upon and which they pursued. All he could do was make fun of them and say, "They really cannot make up their minds, so let us make up their minds for them."
Things have changed a great deal, because before we used to have the people of the community getting together in what we called a minister's advisory board. Members of Parliament would choose people in their community, people who had invested their efforts and their talents working for the communities. We asked them, "Where do you think we should be
December 6, 1979

putting our moneys? Where do you think we should be investing the moneys of Canada and the talents of Canada?" We got these people together to give us their opinions and we said, "Yes, we will try this because we believe in you, and we believe you can help us make the decisions."
But now this has changed a little bit in the short four months. Now we have cutbacks in the phase IV program. I stand to be corrected by anyone in the House who has pertinent information on this, but I understand that now these ministers' advisory boards no longer exist. What happens is that we have the defeated Tory candidates, in the lucky areas in Canada which were able to get money, advising ministers as to the programs that should come in and who should benefit from them. What about the elected members of Parliament in these areas? 1 say to you, Mr. Speaker, that once we bypass these members of Parliament who were elected to be the spokesmen of the people, we are hop-scotching over the legitimate authority to which these people should be coming for information.
Let me tell the hon. member for York-Scarborough, who told us about these programs, that 1 happen to believe that the moneys from Canada Works can and should be used to develop the skills that the community is going to need. Let me tell you about one of the projects which took place in my riding and which 1 discussed as recently as last week with Mr. Bill Miller, chairman of my minister's advisory board. It was a program under which bricklayers were trained, and the money came from the Canada Works program. We have information that of the 28 young men whom we trained under this bricklayers program, 92 per cent have jobs today. What I am saying to you is that the Canada Works projects are good for Canada if they are used in the right way. If they cannot be used in the right way by members opposite, why should we be penalized as well as the rest of Canada, we who take our obligations seriously and who want to make these programs work in all of Canada?


Francis Fox: They will have to increase the budget of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie).


Gilbert Parent: I was going over the figures and I saw that in October of 1977 under the Canada Works program in St. Catharines, which I represented in the last Parliament, 39 jobs were created. In August of 1978, under the Canada Works program 33 jobs were created. Before the phase IV came in, in March of 1979, in our area under the Canada Works program 148 jobs were created for these young men and women who needed these jobs and this experience.


Ronald George Atkey: At what cost?


Gilbert Parent: When we look at the cost of getting experience for these people, at the cost of giving them a chance to learn to do things, we are looking at not only the short-term but, we hope, the long-term benefits which they will obtain from having developed skills and the long-term benefits for Canada, because we will develop the skills of these people thus helping them to take their place in our society.
Employment Strategy


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: 1 suggest that perhaps the minister does not exactly understand what the Canada Works program was to be all about. Witness the fact that it was this very minister, who is sitting in the House now, who cut back phase IV from $140 million by $40 million, so indeed we do not have the money to carry on the programs and thus create jobs for Canadians who live in pockets of high unemployment.
I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) the other day on the government's plan to help the unemployed across Canada. He said in effect that all that would appear in the budget. I praise God that the budget is coming out at long last, after this government has been in office for six months. This government and its ministers had been chomping at the bit to assume power, but now that they have it we have to wait six whole months so that the ideas which were supposedly germinating in their heads for 16 years could come to the fore.
What happens is that there is some cross-up between ministers so that they are not too sure as to where they should be going. It should be noted that in his speech of November 26, the minister said he was going to create a youth employment agency

 I do not know if that is the exact term. I am sure he is aware that it was the Liberal government which had created programs for students under the Canada employment centres, the Young Canada Works programs, the Youth Job Corps, and the Native Internship program. These were all in place, and they created thousands of jobs for our young Canadians across Canada.
The minister cannot have it both ways. In one voice he is criticizing what the past government has done, and in the other he says, "Now we are going to expand it." Boy, that is some great idea! He takes the ideas which are in place, he criticizes them, and now he says they are so good that he will continue with them and expand them. It seems that this party has the reverse of the Midas touch. In other words, everything good they touch turns to bad rather than to gold.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that only six provinces and two territories got some of the money that was allocated for the entire country. Ontario has received nothing, and neither did Manitoba, Saskatchewan nor Alberta, Mr. Speaker. And to think that six or seven months ago, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) said in this House that we, in the Niagara peninsula, had a 14.6 per cent unemployment rate. [English]
After the election, all of a sudden, this figure which was bandied about by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Froese), who is in the House now, by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), and by the present member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), concerning the rate of unemployment in the Niagara Peninsula, has proven incorrect. They spoke of 14.4 per cent unemployment in that area. Yet when I made inquiries at the minister's department some two months after the May 22 election, the figure that I got for my riding in Welland was 5.9 per cent. A miracle happened! All of a sudden,

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
because of the May 22 election, the unemployment figure dropped. I said to them, "You know, that figure must be wrong. It is too good to be true." So 1 called Statistics Canada and, do you know, Mr. Speaker, the figure I got for my riding in Welland was 6.9 per cent.
Now, what am 1 to make of that? Am 1 to make of it that it was an honest mistake by the candidates who were running in that area? Am I to surmise that perhaps they indeed knew we in the Niagara Peninsula, who had been governed by the Liberal government, were not doing so badly after all? The figures will speak for themselves.


Mr. Fretz:: They are your figures.


Gilbert Parent: We know that we are doing well in Ontario, even where there are pockets of high unemployment. 1 refer my comments specifically to the hon. member for Erie who is sitting here tonight: in Fort Erie there was unemployment in that particular town of up to 20 per cent for the last four years. I would stand to be corrected, because the hon. member for Erie is here right now. But this area was overlooked. Of course it was overlooked, "because these people do not deserve the same benefits as they do all across Canada!" In that particular area they said that the unemployment figure was not high enough and that they would bypass it.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Gilbert Parent: There was another program, the job experience training program. 1 compliment the minister because of what he stated in his speech in Toronto. 1 cannot quote from it directly, but the idea was that he believed permanent longterm jobs had to be created through private industry. 1 agree with him. I think that is a valid point.


Ronald George Atkey: You did nothing about it.


Gilbert Parent: As a matter of fact we did a great deal about it. We were the ones who brought in the job experience training program. They are the ones who are now going to get on our coat tails and say, "We are now going to expand that". Now they will say that they are creating jobs for young men and women between the ages of 15 and 24. Well, what was the JET program? It was a co-operative effort between government and business. It was to train young people to be able to get into the work force, to get experience, and to take their places as productive members of our society. We had a program in place for job experience training. We paid up to $2 per hour in subsidies to the industries that wanted to take in these young people, teach them, and show them a trade. Now what do we get? We get this "great" sum by this government that was all involved and worried about the people of Canada. What will they give people in small business? It will be $1.25 an hour!
What we had was something that was working and was workable. For example, in the large urban areas of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, we had subsidies of $1.50 an hour to
the employer up to 26 weeks. In the areas outside of these centres, it was $1.75. In areas such as the Gaspe and the Atlantic region, there was up to a $2 subsidy, because these were areas where indeed money must be put to get people working again. At least that would give them the dignity of work; they would know their worth and feel it as Canadians who are contributing to our society. It is very, very important that wc keep that point in mind.
Earlier the hon. member for York-Scarborough said that it was the fault of the previous government that there was such high unemployment. Tonight the minister said that we did nothing while we were in power. I point out to him, and I point out to Mr. Speaker, with all respect, that 280,000 jobs were created between February, 1977, and February, 1978. Yet the minister sits there and says that we did nothing about it.
The number of Canadians who were working Canadians between 1974 and 1978 rose by 825,000. We are the ones who provided the atmosphere so that these people could take their places in society. 1 say to the House that Canada had the highest job-creation rate of any western nation, bar none.


Ronald George Atkey: Tell us about the unemployment rate.


Gilbert Parent: 1 suggest that it was the programs we put in place; that is what is called performance. We did not wait for six months to bring programs forward so that young Canadians could take their places and become productive members of society.


Some hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to participate in this debate this evening on the motion of the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) which deplores the inaction of the government on employment strategies and efforts to create jobs. In part it reads as follows;
-regrets the inhumane cutbacks in the Canada Works program that have eliminated hundreds of communities across Canada-
1 question whether the hon. member is really serious in presenting this motion. It appears to me, if we are to take his motion seriously, that it constitutes an attack on the programs of his own party. The make-work or job-creation programs in place right now were the brain children of many programs brought forward by the Liberal government when it was in power. If he has any complaints about the fundamental basis of those particular job-creation programs, he has to look to the philosophical basis of those programs instituted by his own party.
For years we looked to the Liberal party for an employment strategy to take care of the serious unemployment problems in many areas of the country. We looked for programs which would create long-term jobs, long-term employment, and jobs which would not be dead end ones paying starvation wages. But we really did not find them, certainly not from the point of view of my part of the country. In my riding all the jobs which were created were dead end ones, because no matter what

December 6, 1979

experience individuals obtained working on these particular jobs, there was no other employment to go to afterwards.
There was a continuing cycle of dependency on Canada Works programs in one part of the year, and unemployment insurance in another part of the year. My constituents are quite perceptive in this because they saw that all Canada Works programs did for them was provide a little bit of income to tide them over to the time when they could collect unemployment insurance afterwards. Nobody recognized these dead end jobs as anything other than a glorified form of welfare.
I have a little quote which demonstrates the cynicism of some people in Newfoundland about particular make-work or job-creation programs. It was quoted in the report of the People's Commission on Unemployment which was released last year. They quote from a submission from a town called Roddickton, which is not in my riding, as follows:
Job creation is like ice cream work-melts away when the good weather comes.
That has been the order of the day for the last dozen or so years. All we had from the Liberal government was ice cream work, work that melts away when the good weather comes. Between 1971 and 1978 almost $114 million was spent in the province of Newfoundland on make-work or job-creation programs. It created almost 50,000 part-time or short-term jobs, for a total of 4,100 projects. That was fine for the time, but when those projects were finished it left the province of Newfoundland in precisely the same position as it was before. To give a little bit of credit, that is not quite true as there were some good projects.
In fact I found it quite interesting to listen to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) on the one hand talk about how terrible and wasteful the projects were, and the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) on the other hand talking about how wonderful the projects were. 1 suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Some of the projects were excellent.
In my own riding many communities got harbour facilities, wharves, breakwaters, and community halls through the Canada Works program. Many other programs were just total waste, and everyone in every community in my riding has a story about the type of waste that occurred.
This motion today demonstrates a tremendous cynicism on the part of the Liberals who present this criticism of a program that they themselves instituted. It is a program that provides really nothing for the unemployed people in high unemployment regions of the country.
To his credit, and this is about the only bouquet 1 will give the minister this evening, the minister has seen the deficiencies of Canada Works and has said he is going to replace it in the coming fiscal year. He has seen the need for a replacement for Canada Works, and 1 will deal with this from the perspective of my own riding, as a basic need for decent jobs of a permanent nature. One of the difficulties in respect of Canada
Employment Strategy
Works jobs is the starvation wages they offer, and these wage levels are not uniform across the country. Because the wages were tied to minimum wages in each province, the wages paid in my province of Newfoundland were the lowest in the country, and starvation wages at that. In real terms the wages paid under the old LIP program were higher.
There was a tremendous amount of waste in many of the projects that were presented. Many were work projects that did nothing more than make work, and there were no new additions in communities. They were simply an excuse to bring more money into the community for very temporary periods of time.
The serious problem with the whole concept of make-work programs is that they create a dependency cycle among individuals and communities for this type of annually injected but needed money. As a result, it becomes almost impossible for people in communities to survive in any other way as there are not other jobs in particular areas and they are forced to accept the type of dead-end, short-term jobs that these programs provide.
However, in the absence of any alternative it is irresponsible and cruel to take from many ridings and many areas of this country the only employment opportunities for many individuals. It has been said by the minister that it is more efficient to concentrate these efforts in areas of high unemployment. That makes sense, but what it does not recognize is that there are pockets of high unemployment in areas of this country that still need some sort of additional government input to tide the people over difficult times.
The cutbacks the minister instituted this year in the absence of an alternative program for particular areas with high unemployment rates, became a very cruel and irresponsible move on his part. The whole cutback program of the government in the last few months really belies its commitment to an employment strategy. The cutbacks in my province from the federal government perspective and from the perspective of the provincial government, both Tory governments, compounded the problems of administering Canada Works programs. Many of the projects, again referring to my own riding, only had funds provided by Canada Works for part of the job or the needed facility, such as a harbour facility.
The cutbacks in the small craft harbour budget under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has meant that many projects are left high and dry, with no possibility of getting off the ground this year or in any other year. This points to another serious difficulty in the whole Canada Works program.
Over the last few years provincial and federal departments have seen in the Canada Works program an excuse to cop out of their own responsibility to provide wharf facilities and harbour facilities and other things under the federal Department of Fisheries. They have said, "let Canada Works do it," and that has led to very tragic and very expensive results. Some of these projects could not be done adequately under the constraints of the Canada Works program.

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
There was one case, again in my own riding, of a project that was instituted before 1 became the member for the riding. A breakwater and wharf were under construction with the use of labour-intensive methods under Canada Works, when what was really required was heavy equipment and machinery to do the thing properly. Since it could not be done properly with human labour, the job was not sturdy enough to withstand the ice in the winter, and when the ice left in the spring there was nothing left of the harbour facility. What this did was force these particular communities into using a vehicle for the creation of certain facilities that was totally inappropriate to the facilities themselves.
1 referred earlier to the decision of the department to cut out areas with low unemployment rates, and I said that was a good idea in theory. Let me refer in particular to the riding of a colleague of mine, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). His riding in Manitoba has an unemployment rate of something in the order of 75 per cent because the riding has a large native population which is excluded from the true unemployment figures. We have seen this concept of hidden unemployment all across the country. What happens is that people know there are no jobs so they stop reporting to the manpower offices.
Statistics Canada figures do not include chronic unemployment areas and, worse still, a riding such as Churchill is in a double bind because not only have they been cut off from works programs, they have also been cut off or have had programs through Indian Affairs frozen, for example, the Indian Economic Development Fund, and only emergency funding is now avaiblable. The cutback program of the government has given that particular riding a double whammy.
Let me now refer to the minister's commitment in relation to a real employment strategy in Canada to help the unemployed people who live in various regions of the country. He has made a commitment to do this through the private sector. Many times hon. members on the other side of the House have criticized us for what is termed our blind adherence to ideology. They have an ideology as well, privatization, and that blinds them to the realities in certain areas of the country where the private sector and the market economy have totally failed to alleviate real chronic unemployment problems.
To cut off make-work programs and turn the solutions to the unemployment problem over to the private sector, in my part of the country is to turn it over to a non-existent entity. Those on that side want privatization. I say that is blind adherence to a mindless ideology that just does not make sense when viewed in the context of particular areas of the country. The entire Atlantic region has been held by this government, as it was by former governments, through their adherence to an ideology which maintains a high rate of unemployment in the area without offering any means to improve conditions.
I should like to refer to the minister's final remarks this afternoon when he announced the government's commitment to alleviating unemployment among women. He said that

programs will be announced within the next few months which will alleviate the problem. I should like to examine the record of the last six months so that we may know what to expect in the future.
The Liberal government cut $3 million from the Outreach program when they left office; then the Tories promised to reinstate the funds. According to the minister, $1.3 million will be reinstated in this fiscal year and $1.7 million in the next fiscal year. This year $300,000 to $400,000 of the $1.3 million will be allocated to women's Outreach programs. Although this statement was made last September, none of the funding has been disbursed to this point.
The government's only real response to the unemployed people of this country was to cut back on unemployment insurance benefits. That was their only-they would say positive but I would say negative-response to unemployment problems. Last year the Liberals raised the eligibility requirements for part-time workers and seasonal workers. The majority of these are women. The specific regulations that would have brought those changes into effect were not enacted by the Liberal government, but were by the Tories when they came into power. At the time the minister said he was committed to putting into effect what the Liberals had done, but I would remind him that as minister he has the power to make changes and he could have changed it in June or July.
The government's commitment to affirmative action has been sadly lacking. This program, instituted by the former government, and in place for two and one-half years, is based on the voluntary agreement of the private sector to institute such programs. But these programs lack teeth, Mr. Speaker. Figures issued this week show that the income gap between men and women has increased, yet just today the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) announced that he was not prepared to put teeth into the affirmative action program but would continue to evaluate the work of the voluntary sector.


Ronald George Atkey: Give it a chance.


Alphonsus Faour: Well, Mr. Speaker, it has not worked in three years. In that time the gap has widened and the position of women, relative to the over-all labour force, has become worse. Yet there is no commitment from the government that it will improve the situation.
The most telling thing is what the government has done in its own shop. The public service has become the target of cutbacks, and 60,000 jobs will be cut, 35,000 of them in the "controlled" public service. A disproportionate number of these jobs will involve women, since a major method of cutting back will be by attrition. Women in the public service are historically more mobile and leave their jobs more frequently than men. As a result, the proportion of women in the public service will drop, but the government refuses to commit itself to reversing that trend.
Buried in the government's campaign promises last spring was a pledge to provide day care in government buildings, but no initiative has been taken on this. I think most hon. members would agree that if women are to achieve equal status in the
December 6, 1979

public service, or in any other sector, day care is a necessary adjunct to the working environment.
The motion before us today deals with the need for an employment strategy, job-creation programs, and the failure of the government to do anything about these things. I maintain that both the former Liberal government and now the Conservative government have totally failed the people of Canada. All that has been provided are dead-end jobs in these make-work programs-jobs that lead nowhere and jobs that have elicited cynicism on the part of the unemployed, and which do nothing to solve the underlying cause of unemployment.
On page 87 of the report of the People's Commission on Unemployment there appears the following statement:
Job-creation programs can be seen as attempts by the government to keep people committed to the economic and political system, when in fact the high levels of unemployment are telling people that the system does not work, at least as far as their own interests are concerned.
I should say this report was prepared after hearing from hundreds of unemployed people in Newfoundland. That quotation tells us that the people of Newfoundland in particular, and I suspect people all across the country, recognize that the job-creation program is a sham. It is an effort on the part of each government to cop out of its serious responsibilities without making a serious attempt to alleviate the unemployment problems in many parts of the country.
The hon. member for Welland referred to the some 280,000 jobs that were created by the Liberal government from February, 1977, to 1978, but he did not tell us that most of them were dead-end jobs which came about through these job-creation programs. Governments have used these programs as an excuse for not providing proper economic development.
1 see my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the House for its indulgence.


Mr. Richard Janelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate on an opposition motion. Tonight I should like to dwell on one aspect of the motion: the creation of temporary jobs. The creation of temporary jobs that the government continues to finance in the eastern part of the country, under the Canada Works program, is an effort with a tremendous impact. We could certainly talk about individual achievements that allowed communities to get many recreational facilities, services and all kinds of buildings Canadians will keep enjoying. Over this past year the Canada Works program provided jobs to about 33,935 unemployed, mostly in Quebec and in the maritime provinces. It makes it possible for an impressive number of workers, out of work for some reason, to stay on the labour market, to keep their knowledge or expertise, or to acquire new ones.
In view of the present rate of unemployment, which is especially high in Quebec and in the maritimes, job-creation
Employment Strategy
programs such as the Canada Works program serve a particular purpose, that of giving workers who are temporarily out of work or in between jobs the opportunity of using their expertise for the benefit of the community on projects subsidized by the federal government. It is important to note, however, that this job-creation program, whose role remains very important in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces, cannot be considered an effective tool against structural unemployment. A program such as the Canada Works program can only lower cyclical or ' seasonal unemployment. This program is for workers who are temporarily out of work or for those who want to get some experience in a particular field over a few months, which can help them land a permanent job afterwards.
A program such as the Canada Works program also helps community groups undertake certain projects which, without government assistance, would never get started. In a number of communities throughout Quebec, for instance, Canada Works projects have helped improve the welfare of some members of the community or the community as a whole. For instance, in my riding of Lotbiniere, this year, the Canada Works program provided work to about 80 persons who will now be able to help their community. Of course, last year the subsidy was much higher in my riding but at that time the rate of unemployment was also much higher than it is now.
Permanent jobs were created which gave people a chance to find employment; this will eventually be much more profitable than the temporary jobs created by Canada Works programs. That is the type of program the government is putting forward. In addition, the diversity of those projects calls for a wide array of skills. Sometimes those temporary jobs may also lead to permanent employment.
As we all surely know, the Canada Works program subsidizes projects in areas where the unemployment rate is particularly high, where the need for help is the greatest. That is why there are no projects this year in some cities such as Calgary or Edmonton, while there are in Rimouski, Gaspe and Bathurst. Mr. Speaker, it is this ability to relieve unemployment in those areas which have special need for assistance that makes the Canada Works program worth while.
The projects we subsidize in Rimouski, in the province of Quebec, meet the specific needs of that city in terms of employment. We do not subsidize projects that use workers in areas where there are job opportunities. So, by granting Rimouski, for instance, $73,000 for a cultural centre, we are sure that the project will hire local workers who will be employed until such time as a permanent job becomes available. We keep encouraging workers to look for a permanent job while working on a Canada Works project.
Faced with a particularly high rate of unemployment among the young workers of Canada, and especially those of Quebec and the maritime provinces, the Canada Works program very often reaches a double objective, preventing their going through a long period of unemployment and sometimes provid-

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
ing them with their first important jobs. So for the young people who are looking for their first jobs, the waiting period before finding permanent jobs is tempered, and they keep their hopes and motivations.
Mr. Speaker, I prefer by far seeing our young graduates from the various community colleges work on the construction of a system of cross country ski trails while waiting for permanent jobs than wasting their time standing on street corners.


Mr. Dawson:: The hon. member should talk to his minister, for he said the opposite this afternoon.


Richard Janelle: My minister is listening. Some of the activities within a Canada Works project may even lead to the development of tourist attractions which may eventually be a source of still more jobs. I think we all know-


Dennis Dawson: I am sorry.


Richard Janelle: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very difficult to continue. 1 think we all know a project funded by Canada Works whose immediate result was the development of a sports centre, or a library which continues to provide permanent employment to several people, let alone the people who continue to benefit from community services set up or developed under the Canada Works program.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Canada Works program, in spite of its merits and its successes, could not last forever in a role that only serves to correct the problem of unemployment on a partial or temporary basis. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the government in power showed yesterday that it has already started to solve the problems of unemployment when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) announced in Montreal the DREE grant program in a special area of Montreal. The program brings several major amendments to the former special area of Montreal and satellite cities, those cities that among other things will be able in all industrial sectors without exception to be eligible for the DREE program, and that will really create new jobs. Indeed, it is important to know that the area of application will be extended to include from now on the ridings of Vaudreuil, Soulanges and Huntington, as well as the non-designated part of the Outaouais area. My friends opposite were asking me earlier if that would create employment if DREE is to be called upon to fund over 500 projects in the four years planned for this new program. Those projects should generate investments of nearly $500 million and allow for the creation of over 32,000 direct and indirect jobs. That is constructive.
This government also looked for practical, new and appropriate solutions suited to the needs and circumstances. It is precisely the reason why a new policy of job creation was established by this government in the last few months and why its content will be revealed in the budget speech, in a few days.


An hon. Member:: On what date?


Richard Janelle: If my hon. friend does not know this, perhaps he should read newspapers now and then. I think during his time with the government in power the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard) should perhaps have endeavoured to do something for the Montreal area and, for the special areas in the Outaouais region, instead of criticizing the present government which has to make up for the errors made by them for 16 years.
Such policies on the part of this government will better meet the needs of all areas of the country because it must be emphasized that they were developed after full consultation with provincial authorities. They will be part of a comprehensive strategy to promote and stimulate the job-creation efforts of both private enterprise and other government levels. Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that these facts will have provided a few answers to hon. members opposite concerning this part of the motion now under consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


An hon. Member:: Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, Mr. Speaker. We must certainly not forget Bonaventure.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised at the speech made by our colleague from Lotbiniere. When 1 was listening to him, 1 wondered on behalf of whom he was speaking. After being elected under the Social Credit banner in Lotbiniere at the last election, he has become a defector to the side of the Progressive Conservative party-


An hon. Member:: A "turn-coat".


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: A "turn-coat" as we say where I come from, and when he crossed the floor of the House-in fact, he did not cross the floor, he simply moved down two or three places-the whole executive of the Social Credit association in his riding resigned. Therefore, who is he representing now? Does he speak for himself or only on behalf of the government? What is even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the hon. member for Lotbiniere was extolling the virtues-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on a point of order.


Richard Janelle: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether the hon. member is speaking on the motion introduced by his party today or whether he is indulging in petty politics.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
December 6, 1979


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Longueuil on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, the question just put by the parliamentary secretary is extremely important. I strictly refer you to his speech in which he dealt almost exclusively with DREE, ignoring the main motion and what it means. Throughout his speech he never realized that the motion was on the Canada Works program. And now he wants to tell us how we should deal with this motion. Mr. Speaker, I think he did not even take the time to read the motion. He does not even know the first paragraph of the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since I feel that two negatives do not make an affirmative, 1 shall recognize the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to quote the flattering remarks made by our colleague from Lotbiniere about the Canada Works program. While listening to him, we wondered whether he was on the right side of the House and whether he should not be on this side-


An hon. Member:: We do not want him!


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: -but particularly when 1 heard his colleagues applaud when he contradicted most of their speeches this afternoon and spoke against the Canada Works program. Mr. Speaker, either the simultaneous translation is not working well or the government members did not understand anything. I saw the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) looking at him during ail his speech and I think that he left because he was too embarrassed to listen until the end.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to speak on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) and raise two very important issues, one of which is job training. This job-training program is extremely important, especially in outlying areas, in areas remote from large urban centres such as most areas in Quebec and eastern Canada. I do not think one should distinguish in the matter of job training with regard to the various social classes between the 15 to 24 age group, the 25 and over age group, and women as well. All these groups have an equal importance, Mr. Speaker. That is why 1 think we must warn the Minister of Employment and Immigration against a passage of the speech he delivered here in Ottawa last November 22. I quote:
According to demographers, the post-war demographic explosion ended around 1960. And while in the first half of the 1980s we will have to deal with young people wanting to find a place for themselves on the labour market, the situation will reverse itself afterwards. The further we will go into the decade, the more the age pyramid will change: young workers will no longer be the majority but rather middle-age workers.
Mr. Speaker, the minister will have to be extremely careful with this kind of statement, because in our area, in eastern Canada and more particularly in eastern Quebec, in the Gaspe
Employment Strategy
Peninsula, the middle age population is in dire need of this vocational training. Let us not wait the mid 1980s to meet the needs of these workers. They are the ones who, in our area, did not have the chance to make advanced studies and to attain a high level of education in order to compete in labour markets where manpower is more restrictive. They have to be content with being part of a second-grade labour force which always gets the jobs that provide hardly any employment security. Further, they have to accept lower salaries and fringe benefits. Finally, they have almost no promotion opportunities. That is why, Mr. Speaker, occupational training is extremely important to people in that social stratum.
While workers were facing a very serious problem, having only 52 weeks of occupational training, the minister brought Bill C-8 back to the House in an attempt to change that and extend the training period to over 52 weeks. We will have the opportunity to talk about this again when the House considers the bill. But 1 would like to give some figures which are very important and which show the urgent necessity for that occupational training and its deep significance for the people who live in large urban areas. For instance, in the riding of Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeieine alone 1.636 jobs have been created in institutions under this program from December 1, 1977 to December 1, 1979. This means the minister will have to make a tremendous effort to invest in this program, and I hope that on Tuesday next, on December 11, the budget will give us more details and bring us more money. However, I would like to quote once more from the speech made by the minister on November 20:
The government will also put the accent on its work-training programs, both in industry and in technical schools.
As 1 said, the minister is pursuing the previous government's manpower training policy. But nothing new is introduced in the area of occupational training. On this subject, I would like to take a few minutes to describe the importance of manpower training for our region and most of eastern Canada, where there is a growing trend to create small and medium industries. This specific area of manpower training can help the people gain experience during those weeks where they can be paid jointly by the government and by industry. 1 am aware that the Quebec government also has a responsibility in this area to evaluate the kind of training it must give and to establish the six-week period in which industries can be paid. I also believe, as the minister emphasized this afternoon and as can be seen, that it is the thrust of the new government to help private industry. I think this is a case where the government really can do something to allow industry to develop in areas where it could hardly do so without government help.
To this effect, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote a few rather revealing figures concerning the Gaspe Peninsula and in particular the Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine riding. During that same period, from December 1st, 1977, to December 1st, 1979, 780 jobs were created under the industrial

December 6, 1979
Employment Strategy
training program. This means, Mr. Speaker, that in a region where there is an incredible resurgence of vitality, this part of the program is extremely important. 1 say to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that 1 hope there will be something in next week's budget to help those industries, that there will be more than what the minister has done in the last six months. He says he will do something, but we have not seen anything yet. In the speech he made on November 20, he said he had introduced a bill before the House, but we see that it is just a reprint of the bill introduced by the former government. Is that what the minister calls new initiatives in this area? This government has nothing to show yet in the area of employment, and we might wonder whether the government really want to do something to improve the employment situation in areas where the need actually exists or whether they are merely trying to help the private sector.


An hon. Member:: They are laughing at the workers. That is what they are doing!


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address myself to another extremely important matter which has already been discussed in this House, and which has been debated from both sides this afternoon, i.e. the much talked about Canada Works program. I would like to deal tonight, Mr. Speaker, with the way selections were made by the new Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the integrity of this program which has been in existence for the past four years and through which the former government managed for three years to make a rather fair allocation of money in all these areas. We mentioned these problems to the minister many times but he has never been able to tell us exactly how this selection had been done.
Mr. Speaker, 1 really question the way these projects were selected. I am convinced the Minister of Employment and Immigration probably depended on his department for services rendered or maybe on the member who had the floor before me and who spoke so highly of the Canada Works projects. That might be the reason why he had so much to say about these projects, because this year he and his colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), really had a lot to do in that field.


An hon. Member:: Porkbarrelling!


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Several of my colleagues in the House have already pointed out to the Minister of Employment and Immigration the problems that have been raised on that subject. I questioned him in the House and in committee but I could never get a precise answer.


An hon. Member:: You will never get one, either.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Probably because the minister is involved in a situation where he finds it difficult to select projects. In order to demonstrate how he could oppose the recommendations

made by the officials reponsible for housing and employment in several regions, I would like to refer to what happened in my riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine and give you some facts which I think-if I am to believe the information I have been given by some of my colleagues-are very interesting. A policy has been established for Quebec and probably for other provinces where Canada Works projects have been implemented.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, employment and immigration officials have established a practice in that riding which I am told was used frequently in other regions in Quebec and in the maritimes.
They looked into the first three phrases of Canada Works to know how the money had been distributed and spent. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I would quite simply like to say how the money was distributed in the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. We see, for example, that in phase one our area got $300,000 for Causapscal, $450,000 in New Richmond, $200,000 in Chandler and $450,000 in the iles-de-la-Madeleine.
That goes on in the second phase where one had up to $3 million to arrive at the fourth phase where they set about the same proportion in those four areas of the riding based on the data put together during the three first phases and looking at how people had worked and the success of the projects. Once again this year they divided hypothetically the amount of $3 million that had been allocated. They came to the conclusion that in one part of the riding there should be $330,000, in another one $474,000, and in another one, $1,400,000 and finally, in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine, $700,000, for a total of $3 million.
They also decided to establish a per capita ratio. They established across the riding a per capita ratio of $52.43 which meant they were giving a normal proportion for all people in the riding of Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine. The minister told me in the House, and I am quoting the official report of the debates, at page 1495, that he was relying on past performance. Past performance was the basis which government officials adopted in establishing the data to that effect.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister why he had made those selections, and when the decision was made this year in the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. We realized based on the figures 1 quoted earlier, the minister had awarded $640,000 in the area of Causapscal, $1,300,000 in the area of Richmond, $175,000 in the area of Chandler and $814,000 in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine. What is worse, Mr. Speaker, the minister had on his own initiative awarded $100,000 more to one single municipality in the riding, that of Havre Aubert, in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine. Therefore he changed all the figures established by his civil servants, who are extremely qualified people who had experience in the area and had made studies of
December 6, 1979

the last three phases to see what were the achievements which resulted in the per capita amount established for the constituency as a whole at $52.34, to come to $60.25 only in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and to $47.50 on the mainland, in Bonaventure.
Then 1 wonder on what basis the minister made such a decision. I asked him that question, and so did some of my colleagues. We were never able to obtain an answer, Mr. Speaker. We think, as I stressed earlier, that our colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, was so happy to talk about the merits of Canada Works projects that we got no answer. I am afraid the Minister of Employment and Immigration was influenced by other colleagues in his party, and that he indulged in a shameful political favoritism, Mr. Speaker. The minister was never able to give us an answer, he was never able to give me the precise reasons for favouring one project over another-


Mr. Cameron:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said, or implied, that we were dispensing political favours. 1 want him to know that in my riding of Kamloops-Shuswap we had a million dollars last year and, this year, nothing. So there is no political favour being dispensed. If it is, it is in your favour.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement here. My hon. colleague may well know what I am driving at. 1 said that the minister has never been able to explain why he changed the decision made by the departmental officials, while 1 personally suspected that there had been patronage. I would simply like to read an excerpt from a news bulletin given on station CHNC on November 23, 1979. As a matter of fact, the additional $100,000 was handed over to a municipality where the applicant for the project, Mr. Carbonneau, stated that he had obtained the sum of approximately $204,000 because he had been a candidate for the Progressive Conservative party. Is this pork-barrelling or has the minister made an enlightened decision on this matter? This is the question that I have asked the minister, but that he has never been able to answer. Is this patronage?
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minister was persuaded by someone else. I believe in the integrity of the minister and in his desire to help the cause of the workers and the unemployed, but I find such a decision shameful. Still in this same news bulletin, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative candidate at the last election was saying, "I have the feeling that I would have had the additional $100,000 if 1 had not been a Progressive Conservative candidate. 1 had to bring pressure to bear to get the additional $100,000." Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that I understand tonight why the minister has never been able to give me an explanation and why he changed the recommen-
Employment Strategy
dations of his officials, which 1 had myself approved as the member of Parliament for that constituency. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, what is even more surprising is that $103,000 had already been allocated to this same project. Out of the 72 projects accepted in the constituency, only four were allowed in excess of $100,000, and these amounts vary between $100,000 and $120,000, while this project alone received $204,000.
Mr. Speaker, this is how the unemployed are treated in my area. I think that the minister will certainly have much to explain in this regard. He will probably have a chance to give an answer about this. I hope that he will also take time to answer all my questions. 1 finally asked the minister after seeing what was happening in this riding, why the unemployed deserving to be able to work this winter had been penalized, and I am sure that the government members are also aware of the unemployment problems in eastern Quebec, especially in the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. And this is why I asked about the $100,000 he granted unilaterally. 1 do not know whether this was on the recommendation of his officials, but I rather believe that it was on the recommendation of politicians. 1 will ask the minister to find the $100,000 somewhere in the general funds of Canada Works and allocate it to the Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine riding so that his officials will be able to distribute it equitably and allow the largest number of unemployed to work this winter.


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, I think we would certainly have much to say about Canada Works and the performance of this government, particularly when we see to what extent the minister-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been debating this motion for a full day. There have been three speakers from this side of the House. Half of the members of Parliament are on this side of the House. There have been two speakers in a row from the Liberal party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you challenging the authority of the Chair?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am requesting permission to have the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor. I am waiting for his point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We have had several understandings from the Chair that there is an attempt on the part of the Chair to make sure that time is given equally to all members of Parliament. 1 have been waiting patiently all day for what I took to be the turn for our party to speak, and 1 am wondering if Your Honour might allow me to use the few remaining moments to address this issue.

December 6, 1979
Supply


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if the hon. member of the government party is willing to share the next 15 minutes so that we may have seven minutes each, I will be very pleased.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on the government side has just received a proposal from the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson). He knows very well that if he really wants to take the floor he simply has to rise under Standing Order 29 and ask that such or such a member have leave to take the floor. Since he did not do so, Mr. Speaker, I think that the point he raised is out of order and that the hon. member for Louis-Hebert should have the floor to continue his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the point raised by the hon. member, I understand his frustration. It is not easy for the Chair to compensate and satisfy everybody. We were just coming to the conclusion of the debate, which we have now reached at 9.45 p.m. It was my decision-and I do not have to explain it-that with 30 seconds left and this being an opposition motion, one opposition member should have the chance to sum up the debate. In any case, the hon. member had the alternative to move that he be heard. He did not do that. The debate is now concluded, and I must put the question. I do not even need to rule on the point of order he has raised.
It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(10), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of all business of supply now before the House, including the bill based on Supplementary Estimates (B).


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(B)
Hon. Perrin Beatty (for the President of Treasury Board) moved:: That Supplementary Estimates (B), 1979-80. laid upon the Table, Wednesday, November 7, 1979, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Beatty thereupon moved that Bill C-29, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for
the financial year ending March 31, 1980, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Beatty thereupon moved that Bill C-29, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On Clause 2-$431,102,010 granted for 1979-80
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. Can we be assured by the government that there is no borrowing authority tucked away in this bill or anything else which should not be there? 1 cannot find it, but you never know.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member cannot find it, it is not there.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, as my House leader says, if the hon. member cannot find it, it certainly is not there. However, 1 can assure the hon. member that the form of this bill is the same as that of those passed in previous years.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member is aware that the bill was distributed this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 would just like to be sure that there is nothing in it that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would not have liked last year.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Henry Perrin Beatty: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 9.52 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, December 7, 1979