1980-04-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the General Rubber and Tire Company of Barrie, Ontario, has already laid off 50 workers and that a great many of the remaining 850 workers face a similar fate, even though the company is in the middle of a $16 million, privately-funded expansion program involving new equipment for the manufacture of radial tires, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the government not allow the proposed $55 million regional economic expansion grant to Michelin Tire in Nova Scotia which will do nothing to create new employment but will, at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer, transfer jobs from Ontario at a time when the tire industry is operating below capacity.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Bill J. Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the terms of Standing Order 43, on a matter of increasing urgency and pressing necessity.
In view of the mounting anxiety of many Canadians with regard to the possible adverse implications of the Quebec referendum vote on May 20, and the increasing need to provide the nation with assurance of economic, social and political stability and continuity following the referendum, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House instruct the government to take immediate action to schedule a first ministers' conference at the earliest opportunity after the Quebec referendum vote on May 20 to discuss fully and evolve an economic, social and political strategy to deal with the consequences of the referendum vote on the nation and its international relations. Furthermore, that all official leaders of the oppositions in the ten provinces and the federal House of Commons be invited to fully participate as members of the conference.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of reports that United States trade representative Reuben Askew has indicated that no major overhaul of the Canada-U.S. auto pact is likely, and in view of Mr. Askew's statement that the pact is not perceived to be fair and helpful in spite of the $3 billion deficit which Canada now endures, all of which reflects an attitude toward the concerns of Canadian auto workers which could at best be described as unacceptable, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this government place before Parliament immediately the measures it intends to take to safeguard the Canadian auto industry and its workers from the continued losses which are occurring.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX ON NORTH AMERICAN-BUILT AUTOMOBILES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In view of the continuing deterioration of the automotive industry in Canada, and in view of the reluctance of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to bring this whole
358

April 24, 1980
matter before the appropriate standing committee-indeed, the reluctance of the government to do so, as witnessed by the previous motion proposed on the subject under Standing Order 43-and since this government has failed in every way to ease the uncertainty within this vital industrial sector, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House direct the Government of Canada to immediately consider the removal of the 9 per cent federal excise tax on North American-built automobiles in order to stimulate the industry and at the same time assure continued employment for the thousands of Canadians who are threatened with massive lay-offs.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL HOPPER CARS-GOVERNMENT POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing concern to western Canadian grain producers.
It was the declared policy of the previous government to expedite the delivery of western grain by the acquisition of
2,000	additional hopper cars. Reliable reports from grain handlers in western Canada indicate that this figure will be reduced to 1,250 hopper cars by this present government. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House requests the Minister of Transport to clarify the government's hopper car policy either by appearing as a witness before the Standing Committee on Agriculture or by making a definitive statement to this House.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the uncertainty that exists in the remote regions of Canada regarding the stand of Revenue Canada to tax
certain benefits which traditionally were tax exempt, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the Minister of National Revenue take immediate steps either to bring in amendments to the Income Tax Act or a ways and means motion to ensure the exemption from taxation of the benefits as promised by government spokesmen during the campaign.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the plans of the British Columbia government to build a new bridge at Annacis Island over the Fraser River to allow more automobile and other traffic to flow into already congested neighbourhoods in Greater Vancouver, including the Boundary Road area, and in view of the fact that in this energy-conscious age it does not make any sense to build commuter bridges and ignore rapid transit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House notes that there was no mention of rapid transit in the Speech from the Throne, remembers previous government promises in this area and directs the government to allocate $300 million immediately to Vancouver and other cities for rapid transit, and not one penny at all to projects like the Annacis Island crossing.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ETHNIC GROUPS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an undoubtedly urgent and pressing matter, that is the presence today on Parliament Hill of Canadians of Armenian extraction.
April 24, 1980



I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House takes note of the presence of Canadians of Armenian origin here on the Hill today and takes this opportunity to express its appreciation and admiration for the contribution of Canadians of Armenian descent to the development of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*
* *

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter that follows the spirit of the previous resolution.
Whereas there is a pattern of violence, repression, kidnapping, torture, murder and assassination in the Republic of Guatemala; and whereas in the first three months of this year alone it has been estimated that 1,000 individuals have been found murdered, many of whom had been tortured; and whereas the rule of law is not generally upheld, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais):
That this government formally express to President Romeo Lucas Garcia its profound concern and disapproval of such conditions in the Republic of Guatemala and urge him to do all in his authority to reinstate to the people of that country the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which they are entitled.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The government has spoken about a $1 billion saving as a result of blended oil pricing. If the government can calculate the anticipated saving, it must have a formula. I wonder if the minister will tell the House whether the government now has a firm formula for blended pricing.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Madam Speaker, the formula is indeed the blended price formula, including the price for old oil, or traditional oil, another price for non-conventional oil, and the progressive blending into those prices of imported oil.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if that firm formula has been communicated to any or all of the provinces.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, I had discussions with the producing provinces when I visited them shortly after my appointment. Obviously, they were all aware of this formula since it was a formula on which this party campaigned and was elected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources must have been answering a question I did not put. My interest is in knowing whether there is a detailed formula-not simply a general formula involving algebra and involving the main components-on which the Government of Canada has now calculated it will realize savings of $1 billion, and whether their detailed formula has been communicated to the provinces. The first question is: is there a detailed, specific formula? The second question is: Has that detailed specific formula been communicated to the provinces?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the formula is as detailed as I have just stated it to the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: "X" plus "Y" equals zero.


FUTURE PRICES OF OIL
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: If the minister will not inform us, or does not know the formula, will he at least admit that, given the statement by the Minister of Finance that he will save SI billion on this formula, given the statement by the province of Alberta that they expect net benefits from this new agreement equivalent to last December's budget, and given the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on April 16 that the federal government expects to receive the

April24, 1980
Oral Questions
same benefit as it would have had from the December budget, these three conditions can only be met with price increases this year, and each of the next three years, in excess of the $4 and $4.50 that was promised by him and his leader during the election?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


Harvie Andre: The reality is that in fact his statement is impossible. His formula, plus these conditions, means a price increase of $6. Will the minister at least have the honesty to admit that this blended formula to which he referred will mean that consumers in Canada will immediately feel the effects of any future increases in OPEC or Mexican oil prices?


Marc Lalonde: Would the hon. member repeat the last part of the question?


Harvie Andre: My question is: will the minister at least admit that this blended formula will result in Canadian consumers of heating oil, as well as transportation fuels, immediately feeling the effects of any future increases in world prices, OPEC or Mexican; in other words, they will no longer be sheltered from that, in fact, and they will feel the effect immediately on their monthly heating bill?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. It comes from a statement made in Alberta by the western premier a day or two ago where they called upon the Prime Minister to convene a conference of the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution, regardless of whether the referendum comes out Yes or No.
I say to the Prime Minister that I agree with the western premiers that we cannot accept sovereignty-association nor the status quo. But in light of the request, will he accede to it? Will he accept the request of the western premiers and convene a conference after the referendum, regardless of the results of that referendum?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member agrees with the position taken by this party for at least 12 or 15 years, that sovereignty-association is not acceptable nor is the status quo, that is why since 1968, when Mr. Pearson was prime minister, we began a series of proposals for amending the constitution in many ways. Most of those proposals are still on the table.
I believe the other part of the question was commented upon by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on my behalf, yesterday and I support him in his answer. If the answer is No, as we hope and expect, then it will be important to convene a meeting of all the premiers and discuss the various proposals for renewed federalism, those that we have made as a government in the white paper entitled "The Way Ahead", the Pepin-Robarts-


An hon. Member:: "A Time for Action".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, the white paper entitled "A Time For Action".


Charles Joseph Clark: "The Way Ahead" is better forgotten.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Also, there are other proposals made by some of the premiers, and they will all be up for examination. But if the answer to the referendum is No, as we do not expect-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -is Yes, as we do not expect, and would regret, then of course the question would arise whether the premiers would want to meet in the absence of Mr. Levesque. I think that had better be left for discussion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the western premiers have made it very clear that they want a conference, whether the answer is Yes or No in Quebec. Allan Blakeney, speaking on behalf of the premiers, when talking about Quebeckers said the following:
We are prepared to attend any conference. Bring along your ideas on sovereignty-association, and we'll bring along our ideas.
We will not accept your idea, but, nonetheless, that is the nature of discussion. We clearly agree to have a conference to negotiate a new confederation.
My question to the Prime Minister is, why is he being so intransigent? Why is he hiding behind the referendum? Why is he letting Levesque set the timetable? Is he going to use the same excuse and hide behind the next Quebec election as well? Why is he letting Levesque determine the pace of change in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Translation}


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not understand why the hon. member is asking his question in such a hard tone. Perhaps it is because some of his NDP supporters in the province of Quebec are PQ sympathizers who say they will vote Yes. I would urge the hon. member not to ascribe to our party the confusion of his own party.
What I said in reply to the first question, Madam Speaker, is that the western premiers cannot force Mr. Levesque to come to discuss with them and us, the federal government, the issue of renewed federalism, if his mandate is to discuss sovereignty-association. I cannot speak on his behalf, but I should be quite surprised that with the authority of a mandate secured under a hypothetical Yes he would agree to discuss
April 24, 1980

anything but sovereignty-association. Under these circumstances, it would serve no purpose to call a conference of the other first ministers who would want to deal with other things, for Premier Levesque could say: "Sorry, I am not interested. You may discuss these issues among yourselves, but I will come when you are ready to talk about sovereignty-association".
But this is only a hypothetical situation. Madam Speaker, and 1 do not see what interest there is for the hon. member to try to force us to make a commitment based not only on the hypothetical results of the referendum vote, but also on the attitude Premier Levesque might adopt following these results.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be more concerned about whether or not Mr. Levesque will come, and that is my concern. Why is he letting Mr. Levesque determine the pace of the future of this country?
In Hansard, yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is reported as having said that we will have to see what happens in the referendum campaign and see what the result is. My question to the Prime Minister is the following: Why does he not agree now to the calling of a conference of first ministers, or the calling of a conference of ministers talking about the constitution after the Quebec referendum, regardless of whether the Oui or the Non wins? That is the position of the western premiers, taken unanimously at their conference in Alberta, and I maintain it is also the position of a majority of the people in this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can understand that the western provincial premiers say what they would like to do, and that the hon. member would say what he would like to do. What I am saying is that neither he nor they know what Premier Levesque would like to do. If he should decide not to come to such a federal-provincial conference, I would ask the hon. member, is it the proper thing to do to convene a conference at that point?


Some hon. Members:: Sure.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the parties opposite say "yes". That is not my view, Madam Speaker. 1 will wait and see.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question, also, is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Perhaps he will have less difficulty with this question.
During the recent federal election campaign, the Prime Minister and several Liberal candidates promised the people of British Columbia that under their government there would be
Oral Questions
no increase in oil tanker traffic along the B.C. coast. Would the Prime Minister inform this House, today, what initiatives he has taken to prevent construction of the U.S. Northern Tier pipeline, a pipeline which would bring super-tanker traffic into the Juan de Fuca Strait, and what initiatives has he taken to ensure that B.C. waters will be spared the disastrous consequences of a major oil spill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that the government of which he was a member, the last government, flummoxed the negotiations which we had begun.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We stated during the election campaign that if we formed the next government, we would do our best to undo the mess that had been perpetrated by his government. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has begun discussion of this with his opposite number in the United States. We have reopened the question, and I hope we will be more successful than was the hon. member's party.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows full well that the former Conservative government expressed its clear opposition to the Northern Tier pipeline and urged President Carter to opt for an all-Canadian overland route.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: He knows that full well. The people of British Columbia, if not all of Canada, expect strong, decisive action by the Prime Minister, now, to press this matter with the United States government.
During his meeting yesterday with Secretary of State Vance, did the Prime Minister press this important issue, and will he confirm that a strong ultimatum has been delivered in accordance with promises made to the voters of British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did, and so did the Secretary of State for External Affairs, raise this subject with Secretary Vance. I must remind the hon. member that our government, when it was in power, had indicated to the United States more than a year ago its preference for the all-land pipe route. The Tory government waited from June 4-


An hon. Member:: That's not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to the end of September to state its position on that. As a result of that, the Americans made a decision for the overseas route. We are trying to redress that horrible mistake by that party when it was in power.

April 24, 1980
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER LEGISLATION DRAFTED ON ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister confirm to the House that he has asked the officials in his department to draft legislation dealing with energy conservation matters which now normally fall within provincial jurisdiction?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


David Kilgour: That does not correspond to our own information on the matter, Madam Speaker. However, in light of the commitments made in the throne speech on the issue of conservation, can you tell the House whether you will be discussing this issue with our provincial partners in the near future?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question which was just put to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell this House why in December, 1971, his government decided to take no action to promote an overland oil pipeline at that time, the consequence of which assured the Alyeska pipeline, and that is why we have tankers on the west coast today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member were to inform himself through the officials in the United States who were concerned with energy in those days and, more recently, through the minister of energy of the United States, Mr. Schlesinger, he would know that the Alyeska line was a choice made by the United States regardless of Canadian attitude. They were determined in those days to build the Alyeska pipeline, come what may, and they have said so in so many words.


PRICE OF NATURAL GAS FOR EXPORT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources. Let me tell him, before I ask the question, that he is allowed to answer with more than a Oui or a Non; it is not a referendum question.
According to a report in this morning's Globe and Mail, as the result of personal intervention to the Prime Minister by Mr. John G. McMillian, chairman of Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company of Delaware, the government ordered the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to impose a moratorium on a scheduled price increase on natural gas exports to the United States.
Can the minister explain to this House how he reconciles this action with a "made-in-Canada" energy policy as bruited in the throne speech?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to answer with more than a Yes or a No. I am not aware of any such presentation having been made to the Prime Minister, and I am not aware of any representation coming from the Prime Minister's office or the Prime Minister to my department in this respect. I do not know of any such representation made by Mr. McMillian. If the hon. member wishes to ask the Prime Minister whether any such representation was made, obviously that is up to him.
I can tell the hon. member that the decision was reached following strong representations by the authorities of the producing provinces as well as by the private sector in this respect.
I made the decision to impose the moratorium on the basis also of consultations that I had with my department on the matter.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I will ask the Prime Minister. By my calculations, that is a $75 million letter, in lost revenues to the people of Canada, that went to the Prime Minister. The government has already, by international treaty, bargained away the right to impose a throughput tax on the Alaskan pipeline, they have allowed the National Energy Board to reopen the whole matter of pre-building, and then there is this instance where it has responded rather hurriedly- within a day or so-to the urgings of a chief pipeline executive from the United States.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to acknowledge receipt of this letter and table it in the House and, further, to explain to the House just how far he is prepared to go in compromising Canadian energy policy in order to facilitate the building of this American pipeline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we do not call it an American pipeline. We have negotiated for the building of that pipeline which will have untold advantages for Canada, not only in terms of building the pipeline but in terms of bringing our own gas in the Arctic down to central and western Canada; so I do not think it is fair to say that it is an American pipeline. It is in the interests of both countries. The reasons given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as to why we made this decision and announced it last week are the correct ones.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Will you table the letter?
April 24, 1980


REGULATIONS GOVERNING DISPOSITION OF CROWN-OWNED OIL
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Since it is ten years this month that the oil and gas regulations governing the disposition of Crown-owned oil and gas lands in northern Canada were withdrawn, leaving industry operating in a regulatory vacuum, and since because the ground rules-for instance, those dealing with royalties and tenure-are not defined, investments by exploration companies, particularly by privately-owned Canadian companies, have been seriously curtailed, can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources advise this Elouse when, in order to expedite the goal of energy self-sufficiency-which was a policy of the previous government and, I would hope, is a policy of this government-he intends to bring before this House the long-awaited new legislation?


Marc Lalonde: Soon, Madam Speaker.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, that is the same answer that the Hon. J. J. Greene gave ten years ago this month, in 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: What assurances do we have that this time they will be put into effect?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, then my answer has to be "Very soon".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PLANS FOR EXPLORATION IN NORTH
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In developing plans for energy self-sufficiency, has the minister, or his department, determined to what extent Canada is looking to oil and gas reserves north of the 60th parallel? In particular, has his department developed a timetable and target date, or dates, for exploration activities in the north and completion of the necessary delivery systems, whether they be pipelines or LNG tankers?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the answer to the first part of the hon. member's question is yes, and the answer to the second part of the question is no.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, 1 had hoped that the minister would elaborate in his answer. My supplementary question is with respect to the expansion of the oilfield at Norman Wells, and the application filed by Interprovincial Pipe Line to build a pipeline and to move oil to the south.
Will the minister assure the House and the people of Canada that, assuming approval by the NEB, his government
Oral Questions
will give speedy approval to the construction of this line in order that we may quickly move toward energy self-sufficiency?


Marc Lalonde: Madame Speaker, 1 had the pleasure of meeting recently with the president of Imperial Oil and I asked him about their plans in this regard. I was very interested indeed in learning that they are very eager to proceed with this particular plan.
The matter is before the NEB, or it will be very shortly. It would be inappropriate on my part to comment on a matter which is before the board. I will await the recommendations of the board, and I can assure the House that whatever the recommendations, the government will give them very speedy examination.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I have a telex from the transport employees' section of the Public Service Alliance in Winnipeg which reads:
Transport has decided airport firefighters will no longer have any responsibility for the evacuation of passengers or crew in the event of an accident or fire involving planes at any airport. The responsibility for rescue or evacuation has been transferred to the airlines.
In view of the fact that job specifications for the firefighters includes rescue and evacuation, I should like to ask the minister whether it is correct that this requirement has been omitted from the policy of the Department of Transport and that firefighters are no longer responsible for evacuation and rescue of people in aircraft that have crashed.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, much as I do not like to take a question as notice, I shall have to do it this time because I am not aware of that change. I shall look into it immediately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I gave the minister's office notice of this question yesterday and I was advised that the minister would be in the House for the question period, but he was not.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The matter was reported in the Winnipeg press three or four days ago, the statement has been made by a branch of the Public Service Alliance, and I should like to
ask-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question, please.

April 24, 1980
Oral Questions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I should like to ask the minister if he will assure the House that he will instruct his officials that, under all circumstances, in addition to extinguishing fires and having fire-free paths from all aircraft, the firefighters will continue to do all they can-since they are the people equipped and trained to do it, not the airline personnel-to evacuate and rescue passengers from aircraft accidents at any airport in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, everyone knows how industrious I am. The reason I have not had time to read the papers in front of me is that up to 2.15 today I was meeting with delegates from Winnipeg, as a matter of fact. Last night I was in Toronto discussing other issues with the Ontario government. There are only 24 hours in a day, Madam Speaker, and I always try to make the best use of them.


Mr. Nielsen:: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In view of the announcement by National Sea Products Ltd., of Halifax, Nova Scotia, that it is launching a $25 million integrated fishing and fish processing operation in Uruguay, which is prompted by doubts about the way Canada's east coast Fishery is being directed, is the minister contemplating any review of present fisheries policies with a view to retaining this type of investment in Atlantic Canada? If so, when can we anticipate an announcement by him, or the Prime Minister for that matter, on this question which is of great economic importance to the region?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I assume that if the company in question has decided to invest in a foreign country, it must be doing so for obvious economic reasons. I might say to the hon. member that one of the reasons they have money to invest abroad is because the policies we have put in place have allowed them to accumulate such profits and to have such increases in their shares that they are now able to venture elsewhere.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The Uruguay operation is only one of several recent international diversifications announced by this company, with the new plant to be initially served by six Danish-built, stern trawlers ordered some two years ageo while the minister was in power. The plant will use mostly Norwegian fish processing equipment financed by the Norwegian Export Development Corporation.
Did the minister, when he and his government were in power during the period when these steps were being taken, make any effort to encourage the construction of these ships in Canada in order to provide needed employment in our shipyards and all the ancillary, related industries?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member checks his facts very carefully. To my knowledge, the company in question has ordered six new trawlers, three of which were built in Japan and three of which are scheduled to be built in Nova Scotia with the help of the Nova Scotia government. They are scheduled to fish in Canada. The disposition of other seiners or trawlers, of which the hon. member speaks, escapes me.


DEVELOPMENT OF TAR SANDS AND HEAVY OIL RESOURCES
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister still committed to the development of tar sands and heavy oil resources in western Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the same minister. In view of that answer, will the minister inform the House whether an analysis was done to determine the cost, not only to the local economy but to the Canadian economy, of a minimum of a one-year delay in either the Alsands or the Imperial Oil projects to the economy of Canada, due to the uncertainty caused by his unilateral decision on freezing the price of tar sands' oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member has got his facts wrong again. The price of oil from tar sands has not been frozen. At the present time we are paying the international price, and I said that we would continue to pass on the increases while the negotiations were going on with the producing provinces-in this particular case, Alberta.
As I indicated the other day, the president of Syncrude had indicated that the decision had no impact on its current operation. As far as the future is concerned, we never said that the price would be frozen. We said the price would be increased gradually without being tied to the international price.
As far as any delay is concerned, I would remind the hon. member that it is not this government that has delayed the establishment or the starting of this plant. It is the government of Alberta that has refused to give approval to Alsands to proceed, and they have said that they would not do anything at least until they have an agreement on price. The decision all along has been for the government of Alberta. That decision
April 24, 1980

was taken well before we announced our decision concerning the price of tar sands oil.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I should first like to congratulate the minister on his appointment. At this time, when Canadians are attempting to expand and even retain their sense of identity, we need a strong minister who will fight for Canadian artists.
Last week, Madam Speaker, it was announced that one of our oldest and most distinguished publishing companies, MacMillan, will be purchased by a foreign-controlled textbook company, Gage, a company that has shown no interest whatsoever in carrying on the proud tradition of publishing and distributing the works of major Canadian authors. I should like to ask the minister what is going on. These two companies received over a million dollars from public funds over the last year. Is the minister aware of this situation, and what is he prepared to do to stop this type of take-over?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes. I should like to tell him that I am, of course, aware of the take-over. I have asked my officials to examine it and to report to me as soon as possible.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. I hope the minister will announce some policy on the intentions of the government. Gage will receive a million dollars in subsidies this year, yet it has enough money to buy MacMillan. This will cause lay-offs and restrict even further the opportunity of Canadian authors to distribute their works.
Are we going to allow foreign-controlled companies to use Canadian money to buy Canadian firms? Is this what taxpayers are paying for?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that the two companies involved are Canadian companies acting under Canadian law.
I have indicated my concern and the concern in general of the government about the future of MacMillan and the type of publishing in which they have been involved in the past. We are looking into the matter and will see what possibilities for action are open to the government.


PROMOTION OF GROWTH IN MINING INDUSTRY
William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of State for Mines to
Oral Questions
give her an opportunity to rise and pleasantly dazzle this House with her person and her knowledge of the mining industry.
Can the minister assure this House and the mining industry that her government is planning no regressive taxation, regulatory or legislative initiatives which will inhibit the orderly growth of the mining industry as her government did during the early 1970s.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State, Mines):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: Please let it be noted that I have no trouble at all with the prefix "Madam Speaker". I welcome the opportunity to use it.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his discovery. I thought for a moment I would need to have my officials prepare a geological survey in order to come to this discovery. No, indeed, I am not aware of any of these measures at present. In fact, I met with officials yesterday from British Columbia, who asked the same question. There are no moves at present to increase the tax base.


William J. Yurko: I have a supplementary question of a more specific nature. On June 29, 1978, first reading was given to Bill C-64, an act respecting uranium and thorium mines, which would have required companies proposing to extract uranium in commercial quantities to obtain an extraction permit from the Foreign Investment Review Agency in addition to any permits required by the Atomic Energy Control Act. Can the minister assure this House that her government will in no way reinstate or revive this bill and bring it to this House?


Judith A. Erola: I cannot give the hon. member that assurance at this time because the entire matter is under review at the moment.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. At the outset of this Parliament, the Prime Minister indicated, as I understood him, that within a fortnight he would be bringing down and tabling in this House conflict of interest guidelines.
1 suspect that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will be meeting rather soon. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has any specific date when these conflict of interest guidelines for cabinet ministers will be brought down, and confirm that he will, in fact, table those guidelines in the House?

April 24, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. Madam Speaker. I would inform the hon. member that the matter was discussed for the final time in cabinet this morning. As a result of that discussion I will be sending the guidelines in their final form to the ministers, probably on Monday. I would hope that they could be tabled one day next week, and no later.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO OFFSET LOSSES OF PRODUCERS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I pass on my condolences to him on his workload, and my apologies for adding to it. Since the minister responsible for the Wheat Board does not have the right to sit in this House, I have no alternative.
In light of the fact that export grain prices in countries supporting the U.S. boycott have fallen between 80 cents and $1 per bushel, and in light of the fact that non-embargo supporting countries are receiving as much as $1.35 per bushel over our current price, what support program by way of government assistance is the minister proposing to implement in order to keep the right hon. Prime Minister's promise of April 15, 1980, to offset any losses to grain producers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the concept of compensation in this case-I am sorry, I have to do a bit of a Paul Martin on this one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The concept of compensation is not easy to assess; the justification for it, I mean. Canada, because of its policy with respect to the U.S.S.R. invasion of Afghanistan, has committed itself not to a boycott or an embargo, but a restraint. Present sales to the Soviet Union are at a fairly good level; until March, two million tons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, we committed ourselves to no "normal and traditional" levels. What is that? It goes from two to five million tons. We are trying to reach a happy medium and to honour our obligations with respect to our policies on Afghanistan.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I would like at this time to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Senator Peter Durack, Attorney General of Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INITIAL PRICE OF WHEAT AND FINAL PAYMENT TO PRODUCERS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, my second question is also for the Minister of Transport. The quantity that we sell does not make too much difference; it is the price that counts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is that the way you farm?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: In view of the serious situation in which grain producers are finding themselves due to high interest rates and other increasing farm costs, will the minister assure this House that he will increase the initial price of wheat for 1980-81 to the current level of $4.25 per cent bushel, an increase of 50 cents a bushel over the announced initial price; and, secondly, will the minister guarantee grain producers a final payment equal to pre-embargo levels?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has an advantage over me: he has a piece of paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is, obviously, a relationship between price and quantity. No one will deny that there has been a reduction in the level of prices since the embargo. That is one of the factors being looked into in assessing the justification for compensation.
With respect to initial prices, the government announced them a number of days ago. There is always a debate, as far as I can remember, as to what level they should be at in relation to expectations. In this instance, the government went as far as it could while at the same time being reasonable and indicating certain future developments. Therefore, I do not apologize for that. There has always been a debate each year on the level of initial payments, as far as I remember, for the past 12 years or so.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Since the minister has acknowledged there is a serious problem with the infamous AHOP-the Assisted Home Ownership Program-by making meagre promises of little help, and since I have 4,000 units in my riding, 16,000 in the region of Peel, and that the residents of these units whom I talked to feel most strongly that they were misled by the government into purchasing these units-you might say seduced into purchasing these units-and since four in ten are now vacant, in
April 24, 1980

many of the complexes, and are being abandoned, why is he allowing this ill-conceived program to continue and using advertising such as this to lure unsuspecting families down the road to disaster within five years?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I must admit that my experience in the municipality of which I was mayor is directly contradictory to that of my friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: I am happy to report that, on the whole, the performance rate of this program has been 95 per cent successful. In other words, of those people who originally entered that program, only 5 per cent of the total program area have found that they cannot continue. I must admit there may be some isolated problems, but on the whole it has been a good program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. So that he will not be at a disadvantage, I gave him notice of the question and discussed it with him. It has to do with the strange policy the government follows in allocating hopper cars for grain movement to the British Columbia Railway which his officials consider to be a foreign railway.
Can the minister tell the House today whether he has informed himself sufficiently to realize that the British Columbia Railway hauls grain under the same arrangement as the other railways, and that they should be allocated an adequate amount of the rolling stock which is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is also a very debatable subject. The BCR is not obliged to give Crowsnest rates to the grain shippers. It does so on a voluntary basis, and consequently there would be some justification for the government of British Columbia to do, with respect to the purchasing of hopper cars, what other western provincial governments have done.
This is a debatable subject, I repeat, but as the railway fleet becomes increasingly able to cope with the present requirements there is a possibility that some of these hopper cars could be assigned to the BCR. This is being discussed at the moment.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, might I direct a question to the government House Leader with respect to the business of the House for the next few days now that the debate on the Speech from the Throne has been suspended? Would the hon. gentleman also tell us when he might consider scheduling the last two days of the debate on the Speech from the Throne? When might that debate continue and finish?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, today we shall proceed with Bill C-19 and if we do not complete its study tomorrow we shall take up Bill C-17. If that bill is completed before the end of the day, we can then go on to Bill C-5 as well as, perhaps, Bill C-18.
My hon. colleague knows negotiations are under way with a view to reaching an agreement on the designation of days for the consideration of the business of supply. I trust we can reach an agreement within the next few days which would spare us having to discuss the matter again early next week. In the event of an agreement being reached, we can then proceed next week with the bill on the Bank Act.
With regard to the second part of the question about the last two days of debate on the Speech from the Throne, I asked that the debate be adjourned and resumed later this session. No firm decision has been reached on the exact time at which it can be resumed and completed.


Walter David Baker: There are two other matters, Madam Speaker. At the opening of the session a motion was put forward under Standing Order 43 asking that the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. That was rejected, unfortunately, even though it was in the same terms as a motion the former government had brought before the House. But in the course of the discussion the Minister of Finance said he would consider the kind of appeal set forth in the motion. Has that consideration taken place and will the Minister of Finance and the governor of the bank be available in terms of that motion under Standing Order 43?
The second matter has to do with parliamentary business generally and should be of interest to all members. I think the hon. gentleman will recall that on December 11, 1979, a reference was passed by the House which would allow the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to receive and examine reports from official parliamentary delegations. If he will check Hansard he will see that this is the case. I understand that parliamentary delegations will be going out and that organizations are being activated within Parliament for such a purpose.
It might be appropriate if the government House leader would consider making that kind of reference again on the

April 24, 1980
Business of the House
understanding that it is not our intention to debate the matter but to support it. We believe it was a good reference and it would allow the observations of members of Parliament, as they travel as members of Parliament, to be brought to the attention of the standing committee. If the hon. gentleman would consider this I would be extremely grateful.
Finally, has the government House leader decided when he will begin the allotment of allotted days in this supply period?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, with regard to the first point, the Minister of Finance is now attending the International Monetary Fund conference. I shall be pleased to convey to him the question put to me by my hon. colleague and report as soon as possible.
Concerning the second point, I am taking note of the interest expressed by my colleague. As for the third, it all depends, of course, on the negotiations which were started two weeks ago, that is, at the beginning of the current session.
1 do intend to allow the parties of the opposition a very reasonable length of time to proceed with the study of the estimates. Allotted days usually serve that purpose. I want to assure my colleague that he will have at least as many allotted days as the Standing Orders would allow, if they applied.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, with respect to House business in the next little while may 1 ask the President of the Privy Council whether Bill C-16, having to do with the guaranteed income supplement, is high on his priority list? May I also ask him if he will give priority to the bill which the Minister of Veterans Affairs has promised to introduce at an early date?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. In answer to the second part 1 would say I hope to be in a position to satisfy the hon. member.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, after a sincere effort on my part to collect the data upon which to state my case on a question of privilege I find it is not complete. Could I have your permission to bring the matter to your attention tomorrow?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by nearly 6,000 Canadians in the Peterborough area calling for the establishment of a 10 per cent ceiling on residential mortgage interest rates. On behalf of the petitioners I ask for serious consideration of their proposal by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
April 22, 1980-The Prime Minister.
That the following Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Governor General and Commander in Chief of Canada.
May It Please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council tabled in the House on 21 April 1980, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
Madam 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.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 24, 1980



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the second bill 1 have had the pleasure to introduce in the last 24 hours. 1 hope that hon. members of this House will be as courteous and as agreeable in their treatment of this bill as they were with the first because I bring to the bill the same sense of urgency which was required yesterday in the sense that this bill, which has been submitted in the past, has very severe and very important time-squeeze restraints on it. We feel it is absolutely necessary to pass this bill within a very short period of time in order to properly maintain this program.
The bill is very simple in its purpose. It is simply to extend for one further year the application of the employment tax credit program, a program which was brought in in 1978 to provide a range of tax credits to private employers for creating additional or incremental employment. As members who have examined this bill will probably know, the range was from $1.50 in areas of reasonably low unemployment up to $2.00 in areas of high unemployment such as the maritimes.
In the last year the tax credit program has provided close to
50,000	additional jobs, according to the best figures that we have, at a cost of approximately $100 million. The problem that we faced was that the legislation authorizing the granting of these tax credits came to an end on March 31 of this year. In order to continue the program, therefore, we had to bring in this legislation to extend it for one more year.
What we have done is to include within the bill a retroactive clause which would allow us to make the date of resubmission of applications as of April 15. That means there has been a two-week hiatus between March 31 and April 15 in which employers could not submit applications. Once the bill was introduced through a ways and means motion we then informed employers that they could submit applications but that there was a very strict caveat on those applications: if the legislation was not passed by this House and by Parliament, then the agreements would no longer apply. We did feel that it was important to try to maintain the continuity of the program so that the momentum which had been built up and the expectations of the employers would not be frustrated.
In terms of the success of the employment tax credit itself, it has had, aside from additional employment throughout Canada, a set of additional objectives, such as being a tax credit or an incentive which has been particularly useful to small business. Close to 70 per cent of the benefits under this program and the jobs created have occurred in businesses employing under 20 people. So aside from the simple job-creation aspect it has also been a measure which has provided
Employment Tax Credit Act
substantial incentive to small businessmen and given them an extra benefit under the tax program.
It has also been a program which has been highly focused upon youth employment. Our estimates and evaluations show that about 60 per cent of those under the program were young people. The tax credit program seems to have provided a degree of benefit, particularly in the manufacturing industry, and it has had a fair degree of regional application.
If we look at the allocations across Canada, there has been a sufficient and large number of agreements signed in the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and western Canada. It has not been particularly concentrated in one region or the other. The important point about this bill is that it is required right now in order to continue the program.
In this respect I would like to tell hon. members that they should not treat this as being the only job-creation program this government will introduce. It is simply that we are required under the imperative of time to bring this bill in right away in order to maintain the program. It is certainly our intention, as was outlined in the throne speech, to introduce into this House within a very short period of time-perhaps a matter of two or three weeks-additional job-creation programs to respond to unemployment problems in this country. 1 am restrained because those job-creation programs have not been completely canvassed or reviewed by cabinet, but they would provide a mixture of job incentives both in terms of additional tax programs, additional job-training programs and additional direct work programs and would be able to target in on very special kinds of employment needs which exist in the country, particularly those of young people, women and various minority groups which find barriers or handicaps in the job market.
So I want to indicate to hon. members that this is really only the beginning of a continuation of job-creation programs this government intends to bring forward for consideration.
I should point out that the other job-creation programs will not be of a legislated nature. We have full authority within our estimates and within the programs of the department to apply other job-creation programs. At this point in time it is only this particular initiative which requires legislative enactment.
It is also our hope to begin looking at the longer term employment requirements in Canada. 1 believe it was last week that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that we intend to establish-in fact, it is already in process-a task force composed of members of Parliament from all the respective parties which will be commissioned to undertake a public examination of critical job shortages in Canada and of how both the public and the private sectors might respond to them. As hon. members probably know, my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), will be chairman of that committee. I believe discussions are now in progress with regard to additional members from the other parties who will participate.
We expect that task force to initiate its actions almost immediately to provide for a more complete review in a public

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
way. At the same time, we will also be undertaking a serious re-examination within my department and within the government itself in order to come to grips with the fundamental issue of how we can most efficiently and effectively use public resources to create additional job stimulation.
That does not mean in any way, shape or form that we can replace the role of the private sector. It is by far the most important and significant generator of employment in this country, but the government does have a role in supplementing and adding to the employment picture, particularly with respect to special needs and problems where there are the handicapped, disadvantaged and particular regional problems. That will be the basic philosophy which we will bring to our over-all job-creation program.
I ask for the co-operation of hon. members with regard to this bill because of its importance in maintaining the continuity of our program. If we delay it too long, that will mean that there will be a substantial gap in time. As a result we would experience a fall-off in the initiative by private employers to sign agreements with the government to come into this kind of tax credit arrangement.
I certainly welcome the contributions of members opposite and on this side of the House to the general issue of employment and job creation, but I hope that they will be sufficiently cautious to restrain their remarks to the point where we can deal with this bill with some dispatch. We will have many opportunities in the future, I am sure, to discuss the larger, broader and very important question of unemployment and how this House and this government can respond to it.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would permit a question, because I notice he has a great deal of time left. In his remarks the minister indicated that he will be following this measure by making further proposals dealing with job creation and that they will not be of a legislative nature, that he has plenty of authority within the 1980-81 estimates to do so. As the minister is aware, there has been a great deal of discussion in the House in the last couple of days about the nature of those estimates. Can the minister tell the House how much money is earmarked in the estimates for new job-creation programs, and can he indicate to the House what changes have been made in the nature of those programs from what is proposed in the estimates? In other words, how do the Liberal job-creation programs that he intends to introduce differ from those which are currently contemplated in the Conservative estimates?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I thought the hon. member indicated he wanted to rise on a point of order. It has been the tradition of the House that if a member who has the floor permits it, a question can be asked, but I do not think it is appropriate for the Chair to encourage members of the House to open up another question and answer period. If the minister agrees to answer the question, I will allow it, but otherwise we will not continue with questions and answers.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my simple answer to the hon. member is that, as he well knows, the estimates do set out the expenditure arrangements which do not necessarily have to be attached to any specific programs so long as the envelope or package states the same dollar amount. I can assure the hon. member that our job-creation programs will be restrained or restricted to the same kind of estimates that were put forward, but they will be of a different form and nature.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I rise in the Thirty-second Parliament, and the first time as a critic on behalf of my party.
First, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) on his appointment and wish him well in the exercise of those responsibilities. I should also like to take this occasion to congratulate Madam Speaker and all those who sit in the chair.
I think it may be useful for me to try to explain to the House the sense in which I intend to approach my responsibility on behalf of the official opposition in speaking on employment matters. 1 view the job of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in terms of his manpower responsibility, as the human being who represents in the House of Commons the Canadian people in the area of employment. It is this minister who sits opposite us here today who represents more than one million Canadians who are currently unemployed, who represents those one million people before his cabinet colleagues and who speaks out on their behalf.
I refer to the more than one million unemployed because 1 think there is a great deal of evidence that the official estimates of unemployment rates in this country are seriously in error. Any survey which includes those people who would like to work but who are unable to find jobs provides us with an estimate of between a quarter of a million and 300,000 in addition to the official unemployment figure.
I should like to suggest to members of the House who have expressed concern about equality that clearly the group which is not treated fairly in this country is the group of unemployed. There are between 10 million and 11 million employed people in this country, and we have over one million people who are seeking work and cannot find it. In a sense, we have created a class of haves and a class of have-nots.
I think it is useful sometimes-and this is the tradition of our party as the word "Conservative" suggests-that we look back at history and learn some of the lessons it has to teach us. We do not have to look very far back in time to find out that this nation has not always had a million unemployed people. In 1968 this country experienced its first Trudeau government. In those days there were slightly more than 300,000 Canadians who were looking for work and could not find it. Now, in 1980, there are more than one million Canadians who are looking for work and cannot find it.
April 24, 1980

Today, we are being asked to consider an extension of one more public sector job-creation project, and the tendency on this side of the House is to provide the minister with the legislative authority to proceed because this nation is in crisis. There are more than one million unemployed Canadians. I rank employment in the same category as food and shelter. A job is part of our identity as people; it is the way in which we interact with others, it gives us the financial security to take the plunge to buy a home, to rent an apartment, to be normal, happily functioning members of our society. It is a tragedy that something approaching one-tenth of the labour force in this country is currently unemployed. They are the have-nots. We have created this class of have-nots through a series of economic initiatives which span more than a decade now, which span a period of 12 years of economic mismanagement. I suggest to the House that those 12 years of economic mismanagement have created the one million have-nots who are in this country.
On Monday evening of this week 1 watched when the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) presented to the House his "Mickey Mouse" budget, his half budget. I sat here feeling sad and concerned because I heard a set of economic pronouncements guaranteed to create between 100,000 and 200,000 have-nots. I was bothered by the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration sat there and did not communicate to me any sense of being concerned, any sense that his portfolio will now include another 100,000 to 200,000 Canadians who will not have jobs by this fall. I listened to a set of economic statements which will create 100,000 to 200,000 more have-nots and I thought the Minister of Employment and Immigration should have been concerned since it is his area of responsibility. As I said in my opening remarks, I think he must represent those have-nots to his cabinet colleagues, to his caucus and to the governing party.
It must be clear that the economic statements made in this House on Monday night deliberately create a larger group of unemployed Canadians. The Minister of Finance admitted as much but he did not make it clear. He stood up in the House and said that his economic projection is that there will be on average an 8 per cent unemployment rate in this country this year. The piece of that equation which may have escaped people who listened to that statement is that we are already three months into this calendar year and the unemployment rate has been 7.4 per cent.
As an aside, I might just mention that the unemployment rate in this country started to decline with the election of a Conservative government. It went down, and it stayed down in the low 7 per cent range from the high of over 8 per cent because there was a sense of fiscal responsiblity, a sense of direction and a clear-cut economic base that showed the reliance on the private sector which the Minister of Employment and Immigration just told us he believes in. But we sat here on Monday night of this week and heard a mini-budget which will not give a sense of security to the financial communities in this country. It will not do that, and the private
Employment Tax Credit Act
sector will not respond in the way that the Minister of Employment and Immigration just suggested to us.
I go back to the projection of the Minister of Finance of an 8 per cent unemployment rate in this country for this year. If one remembers that it has been 7.4 per cent for the first three months, then the inescapable conclusion is that by this fall we are looking at something in the order of 9 per cent unemployment. We will have that kind of number by the fall of this year or we will not have an 8 per cent average for the year, because we have been doing considerably better than that in the first part of this year. I think that that is criminal.
I should like to review Hansard of April 21 and the speech by the Minister of Finance. It is an interesting exercise. It is an interesting understanding of the finance minister's mind-set if we look at the speech he made in this House. He started by telling us about the things he is not going to do. It is a remarkable exercise to look at the things he is not going to do because each of those things would help stimulate employment, each of those measures would create jobs in this country.
Let me briefly review them for the House. The first one is that he will not reintroduce at this time the three measures affecting taxation on capital gains. In other words, the Minister of Finance has decided at this time not to encourage Canadians to make equity investments in the private sector. If he had made the decision which the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) made in December, he would have encouraged Canadians to make equity investments in the private sector and thus create employment in the private sector.
The second item the minister mentioned is that he will not reintroduce the measure to provide special tax incentives for investors in Atlantic fishing vessels-clearly an incentive designed to create jobs in our shipyards and ultimately in our fishing industry. The Minister of Finance stood up on Monday and said that he did not care about those jobs, that he would not reintroduce that measure.
He also said that he was not making provision for private corporations to be given tax contracts for investing in particular regions of the country. We have regions and communities in this country with unemployment rates that are staggering- 20 per cent and 30 per cent-yet the Minister of Finance stands up in the House, in the face of one million unemployed Canadians, and says that he is not making provision for tax contracts for investing in particular regions of the country. He does not care about the high unemployment regions.
He went on to talk about the oil industry and depletion allowances. He is going to take those away. They stimulate some employment, but perhaps they are not as necessary as the regional tax incentive. He kept a couple of incentives which I think may produce a bit of employment: the one for spouses, the deductibility for spouses, and also the bond provision for small businesses. I applaud him for those minor matters.
Also missing is something which he addressed later in his speech. I think he was clever, in some senses, in his deflection of the real issue, but he talked about Canadians who have to

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
re-mortgage their homes this year. He made the statistical case that many of those people, even at the current high mortgage rates, would be spending less than 30 per cent of their income to maintain their shelter. The omission, the item he did not deal with, is those people who do not own homes today-the young people in this country, the young families and the newly married who want to buy homes.
The initial projections were that there would be approximately 220,000 housing starts this year. Current projections show that there will be something in the order of 150,000. That means 70,000 homes will not be built in Canada in 1980. How many jobs do those 70,000 homes represent? The failure to take some kind of economic action on the needs of young people trying to get into starter homes not only affects their families and marriages, but it affects in major ways the employment situation in this country.
The projection is that 40 per cent of the employees engaged in the house building industry will be out of work this year. It is not the issue of refinancing a house which is already built, it is the issue of new homes. It is the more significant issue in the long term, in terms of the employability of people. I would hope with the minister's background in the housing area that he might make representations to his cabinet colleagues and the Minister of Finance for some kinds of measures which might stimulate that industry.
We have seen that the province of British Columbia, which by the way is producing a balanced budget, has done a great job of stimulating the housing industry within its provincial boundaries. He might take a lesson from that and bring that matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Surely it would affect 100,000 or perhaps 200,000 people who could be employed in that industry. We have tremendous societal costs from this high level of unemployment. They relate to people's mental and physical health. They are a drain on the national treasury, and I hope that we might do a little bit more about them.
During the election campaign-and I think we had time-I was involved in close to 20 forums in my region of the country where people had an opportunity to suggest ideas to me, to ask me questions, and we came to some conclusions based on the decade of history in the 1970s. I do not know if it has always been clear but it is clear that the Trudeau government in which the minister serves believes in deficits. There is a school of economic thought which historically has said that public deficits can stimulate things like unemployment and that they are good for the economy. We have had for close to a decade now increasing massive deficits which lead to increased need for public borrowing.
If we look back at the last decade we find that the thing that goes along with this kind of borrowing is increased inflation, which hurts those on fixed incomes and, in fact, our entire economy. High inflation is accompanied by high unemployment.
We heard the Minister of Finance on Monday night of this week say he was increasing the deficit by something close to 40 per cent, and increasing the need for borrowing by something close to 40 per cent. I wonder what that borrowing accomplishes. We are talking about the need for the federal government to go out into the money markets of Canada and borrow something in the order of $3.7 billion. What does $3.7 billion mean to the average Canadian? It is a staggering amount that we cannot comprehend; a pile of zeros, as my colleague behind me suggests. I suggest it represents 70,000 mortgages of $50,000. It represents 70,000 new homes and the $50,000 mortgages required to build them. Coincidentally, that is the number of houses which are not going to be built in this country this year.
What are these increased borrowings all about, and why is the federal government today in the position that it has to borrow something close to $12 billion? The finance minister tells us it is to pay the interest on the public debt. That is why his budget is different from the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West. That interest on the public debt is going up and represents something better than $10 billion. The minister also said it was necessary to make oil subsidy payments. This is taking money out of the pockets of the taxpayers to send off to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico.
How much of this public debt borrowing is really money which we borrow outside this country to send outside this country? None of that money which we send outside this country creates jobs in this country. This is an expenditure of public funds which has no relevance to the crisis of unemployment that exists in this country today.
Let me take this opportunity to deal with the 18 cent excise tax in the context of unemployment. The former minister of finance introduced a tax on December 13 which was the cause of the downfall of that government and a significant factor in the re-election of a Liberal government. We on this side of the House felt then, as we do today, that the excise tax on gasoline was a responsible measure. One might ask why. First of all, it is because imported oil is expensive and, secondly, because the over-all use of imported oil is going up. Canadian consumption patterns indicate that our use of oil increased something in the order of 8 per cent while at the same time it was decreasing by 3 per cent or 4 per cent in the United States, our neighbour to the south. That represents a huge gap.
We felt that the introduction of a tax on gasoline would reduce the use of that commodity and thereby reduce the need for the federal government to borrow money, reduce the amount of money which we so willingly ship outside this country, money that does not create jobs. We felt this would take the pressure off the borrowing market and perhaps have some conceivable impact on interest rates which are really strangling our economy. We thought this was a responsible step to take.
On Monday night of this week the Minister of Finance said the government were not going to take that responsible step or replace that responsible step with any other responsible step. He said they were going to do what they have been doing for
April 24, 1980

the last decade, which is to go out and borrow more money so that my children and your children, Mr. Speaker, can pay more interest tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


An hon. Member:: No wonder you are in the opposition.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, one hon. member opposite says: "No wonder you are an Albertan".


An hon. Member:: No, I said "in the opposition".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's a big difference.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is the difference between being responsible and not being responsible, 1 suggest. I thought the hon. member said that it was no wonder I was an Albertan. Perhaps hon. members on that side of the House might care to listen to some of us on this side of the House who represent different regions of this country. One of the characteristics I think they will find of the people who live in western Canada, whether we are talking about Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, is a value they have had for a long, long time in relation to this issue of deficits. In their own personal lives they have a great reluctance to become over-committed to debt. There is a tendency on their part to ask their politicians, whatever their political suasion, to balance the budget. They do not want the government to create debt for them tomorrow. They want the government to do the things that need doing today and to pay for those things today. They have lived through the dusty times. They have had their homes taken over on default during the depression.
This is the kind of tradition that exists in our regions. There is no sureness that next season there will be enough rain and enough sunshine to produce a good crop. When they have a good crop they put a little away for a rainy day. They spend what they have to but they do not go out and commit themselves to something that they may not be able to meet tomorrow because the sun does not shine and the rain does not fall.
When we look at the western regions of this country we find that this was the philosophy during the depression and during the war. Throughout our political history that has been the dominant philosophy. Now, in 1980, that is the healthy economic region of this country. The taxes which are raised there can be spent in productive ways.
When 1 look at the federal budget 1 see that 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the taxes which this government is taking from the Canadian people is spent in non-productive ways, such as paying interest on the public debt and oil compensation payments to Mexico, Iran and Venezuela. Some 25 per cent of the money raised from Canadian taxpayers is not being spent in any useful way. Those expenditures are not related to the unemployment problems in this country, yet they create a burden on all citizens of this country, a burden almost in perpetuity. I think this borders on the criminal.
Employment Tax Credit Act
At the very least we have had a decade of irresponsibility, and today we have major problems. We have a million unemployed with 25 per cent of taxes raised being spent clearly in non-productive ways. We have the finance minister's admission that the increase in the deficit, which increases borrowing, is a consequence of non-productive spending. A look at the main estimates shows that what has happened in the last two or three years is that we have had a real decline in productive spending, more than matched by the increase in non-productive spending. We have more than a million unemployed people in this country as a consequence of a decade of those kinds of policies.
We on this side of the House urge hon. members on that side of the House, those with some sense of reason, to rethink some of the things that have occurred and to argue more strenuously for a little more responsibility so that some of these problems can be solved over time.
The bill which has been presented. Bill C-19, commonly called the employment tax credit bill, on the surface looks innocuous, and it is before us for debate today. I took the trouble to read a speech delivered in this House on December 13, 1979 by the former minister of employment and immigration. The former minister agrees in part with the current minister, that there is something to be said for a program which encourages the creation of employment in the private sector. That is the kind of bill which is before us today. It is better to create employment in the private sector than in the public sector. The long-term consequences are more positive and the costs are somewhat lower. However, did the previous minister intend to introduce the piece of legislation which is before us today? The answer to that question is, no. On December 13 the former minister promised to introduce an employment tax credit bill, but it was significantly different from the bill which is before us today.
The analogy which I have in my mind is that the bill before us today is a "shot gun" bill as opposed to a "rifle" bill. If one really studies and examines the unemployment statistics of this country, it is clear that unemployment is very high in certain regions and very low in others. It is clear that young people, women, the handicapped and native people suffer higher rates of unemployment than do other groups. In these groups unemployment is in some cases three, four or five times higher than the rate of unemployment in the more experienced, normal work force.
The next thing that we should consider in terms of this bill is, does it deal in any specific way with those target groups? When I started my address this afternoon, I talked about the haves and the have-nots. I said that there are over one million have-nots who have no place and no job. But in that category of women, young people, natives and the handicapped, there are more have-nots than in the other groups.
This is "shot-gun" bill that provides no incentive to target the creation of employment on those groups. I suggest to the hon. members of this House that if we have a public responsi-

Employment Tax Credit Act
bility to create employment, and I think we do, surely the employment that we create out of the public purse should be more clearly targeted on those who need it the most, not those who need it the least. This bill does not do that. It is a "shot gun" bill. It could be that the spouse of somebody who earns $200,000 a year is given one of these created jobs. There is nothing to prevent that happening.
The minister has chosen, and I think that it is consistent with the government's pattern over the last 12 years, not to provide this House with a data base which, I am sure, exists in his department. This government gave its mandate to this program some two years ago. If one looks at the main estimates one will see tremendous sums of money being spent in the minister's department for research personnel. It is the largest operating department in the government in terms of the number of researchers working within it. 1 am certain that the minister has in his possession research data on the effectiveness of this program.
We on this side of the House are debating whether or not this piece of legislation should be passed, yet the minister has not seen fit to provide us with the research data base for which the taxpayers of this country have paid. 1 hope that this situation will change when and if the throne speech promise on freedom of information legislation is brought into reality. However, we have been hearing that promise for close to 12 years and I will not hold my breath until I see the bill before me.
If hon. members had that research data, then what would it tell us about this bill before us? If one looks at the provisions of the bill, there are very limited stipulations to which one must adhere. The people who are hired under the terms of this bill must have been unemployed for two weeks. The employer must sign a declaration that without this program the employer would not have had anyone to fill this job. In other words, the employers are declaring that they are creating a job which is extra to the normal needs of their organization.
I wonder if the research data which the minister must possess suggests to him that not every employer is honest, that some may have signed a false declaration. I wonder if that is a reasonable assumption to make. I wonder if the research data would tell us anything about that situation. I wonder if the research data would tell us clearly how many women and native people are employed under the program and the regions of the country in which this employment is created, so that a decision can be made as to whether or not the provisions of this bill provide for a responsible expenditure of public money. Is the expenditure creating jobs for the target groups and the regions which are of most concern to the members of this House? I suspect the research data would answer these questions if it were provided.
The next aspect of this bill which needs examination is with regard to the fact that it is a tax credit bill. The bill is of no value and is no incentive to an employer unless he or she is in the position of having to pay taxes. If they are in a position of having to pay taxes, then the tax credit is of some use to them.
I suggest to hon. members that approximately half the employ-
April 24, 1980
ers in this country are not affected in any significant way by the provisions of this bill. I suggest to the House that it is that half, the companies which are just starting up and are having to struggle to make a go of it, companies which have not turned the corner, that are most likely to create significant employment in the long term. This bill provides no assistance in that regard. That is a choice which the minister has made.
I bring these matters to the minister's attention, and I have encouraged other members of my caucus to bring their concerns to the attention of the minister. The unemployment situation in Canada is the kind of topic which should be debated at some length. I encourage members on all sides of this House to bring to the attention of the minister their ideas and their suggestions as to what might be done in the long term and the short term to help the Government of Canada and the minister to address this very serious issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dionne, Northumberland-Miramichi):: The hon. member for Welland.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, I very gladly-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 believe it is the custom in this House for the first round of speeches to include one speaker from each party. 1 do not suggest anything has gone haywire but I gave the Chair the names of those in this party who wish to speak. I hope that the Liberal member who has just risen will not mind yielding to the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker).


Gilbert Parent: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the custom that has held for many years and, of course, I agree with it. Naturally I defer to my colleague from the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dionne, Northumberland-Miramichi):: The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
I have very mixed feelings about the bill which is before us this afternoon. The employment tax credit program was adopted as a temporary program to stimulate employment in the business sector and it has not done a great deal of good. Unemployment has not disappeared from the scene; far from it. Nobody really believed that this program would accomplish that objective, but I suspect that a good many people on the other side of the House expected that it would at least have a minimal impact on the unemployment rolls.
I need not remind hon. members opposite that there are still nearly one million unemployed in Canada today, even though the program has been in effect for over two years. The latest figures I have from the Department of Employment and Immigration indicate that only 50,000 new jobs were created through this program over the past fiscal year. This would mean, Mr. Speaker, that even if there was no growth in the number of unemployed over the next year-not a very likely
April 24, 1980

proposition considering predictions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on Monday night-the net decrease in the unemployment figure would amount to a mere 5 per cent under this program. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the number of unemployed in this country is likely to skyrocket and this program may well have the distinction of lowering the number of unemployed to, say, 1.45 million from 1.5 million. Not a very distinguishable difference, in my opinion.
I said at the outset that I have very mixed feelings about this bill, that I could hardly lend it my unqualified support. There are two basic reasons why I find the bill difficult to support, but I suppose that basically they both boil down to the question of interest rates.
The first reason I have for not supporting this bill unequivocally concerns the nature of the program itself. This program is based on the assumption that in Canada today there are ail sorts of small businessmen just waiting to expand their operations and hire new employees. Mr. Speaker, that may have been true two years ago when this program was first established, though I have no idea whether it was true or not. But to suggest that it is true today is to believe in the Easter Bunny; it is to deny every economic reality facing small businessmen in Canada today. 1 defy the government to find 50,000 businessmen in Canada today who have even the slightest intention of going to their local bank or credit union and borrowing the capital required to expand their businesses and hire new employees, tax credits or no tax credits.
Mr. Speaker, you would think that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and his cabinet colleagues had been living in a cocoon for the past four months, that they had not talked to any small businessmen since their election. 1 have spoken to small businessmen in my riding on a regular basis and I have heard their pleas for action. They have not been pleading for an extension of the employment tax credit; they have not been requesting that the government give them extra tax concessions. Mr. Speaker, their pleas have been much more serious than that. They have been pleading that this government stop strangling them, that they loosen the noose before they are forced to go bankrupt.
Small businessmen in Canada today are crying out for one thing and one thing only-lower interest rates. Who in his right mind would go out and borrow money in order to expand his business when he is being asked to pay upwards of 20 per cent interest? The tax credit is irrelevant. It does not mean anything because the assumption on which it is based is ridiculous.
1 often wonder what great minds are at work in the Department of Finance, when the economic signals coming from the government are so totally contradictory. On the one hand, we have the Milton Friedman economists whose monetary policies are so conservative that they were even rejected in Chile. These people are forcing interest rates up to absolutely insane levels. And the main reason for this policy is that they want to discourage borrowing. They want us, to quote the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), "to tighten our belts and live within our means."
Employment Tax Credit Act
The fact that the Canadian people rejected this philosophy on February 18 does not appear to faze these monetarists. They have never been particularly concerned with such radical theories as voting and democracy anyway, so they sit in one room in the Department of Finance thinking of new schemes to raise interest rates and discourage borrowing. And then, for all we know, across the hall sit the small "1" liberals who designed the employment tax credit program and who are recommending that it be extended for another year. These are nice enough fellows in their own way, but it seems they never talk to their colleagues across the hall because this program is designed specifically to encourage borrowing. It is based on the assumption that businessmen will dash out and borrow the money required to hire extra employees in order to qualify for the negligible benefits which the tax credit provides.
If I had to choose between one or the other of the groups in the department, Mr. Speaker, I would side with the group that drafted this bill. But it is not that simple. Every possible positive contribution which this bill is likely to make will be negated by the high interest rates dreamed up by the monetarists across the hall.
What is more discouraging is that if, and I do mean if, this bill has even the most minimal effects and does provide an incentive for even just a few businessmen to go out and borrow money in order to expand, it will only encourage the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada to immediately raise interest rates once again.
That is a Catch-22 situation which those of us in this corner of the House find impossible to tolerate. That is why we have been demanding a decrease in the interest rates. It is time that the Government of Canada tells these monetarists what the people of Canada tried to tell them in February, that they do not agree with their ideas and do not want them messing up our economy any more.
I have one other reason for being less than enthusiastic about this bill, and it relates a little bit more to my constituency. I represent a part of British Columbia which relies heavily on the forest and lumber industries for employment. In February, Statistics Canada reported that my region had the highest unemployment rate in western Canada and, with the exception of Windsor, the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec. The reason for this crisis can be summed up in three words- high interest rates. The high interest rates have resulted in a depressed mortgage market, which in turn has meant a downturn in construction, which finally has meant a serious slowdown in the forest industry.
This bill will not put one unemployed woodworker back to work, and for that reason I consider it inadequate as a method of dealing with unemployment in my region. There is only one way of dealing with that problem and it is very simple-lower the interest rates. So long as they are high, the men and women who are unemployed in my riding will stay unemployed, regardless of what "Mickey Mouse" programs the Minister of Employment and Immigration is toying with. He

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
would be much better advised to have his officials look into the possibility of extending UIC benefits and to fight inside cabinet for lower interest rates than to play with meaningless programs like the one which we are discussing now.
In conclusion, 1 should like to point out that this program is really an attempt to treat symptoms and not to treat the disease which is plaguing Canada today. 1 think everyone in Canada would be better served by a program which reduced interest rates than by this rather meaningless program, which only serves to keep a relatively small number of people off the unemployment rolls. 1 urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Finance to get together and treat the problem of unemployment in a very serious manner.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to join in this debate on Bill C-19. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), said that this bill was meaningless. I suggest that a program which over the last two years has produced 23,000 new jobs for women and 37,000 new jobs for men can hardly be termed meaningless.
The previous speaker before the member from the New Democratic Party was bemoaning the fact that we are approaching one million unemployed. We on this side of the House know full well the ravages that such high figures can bring. The previous speaker also said that we in Canada have never had so many unemployed. I suggest the converse is also true: we have never had so many of our workers employed across Canada. There are over 11 million Canadians who are at work today.
The speaker from the Tory party said that they in his part of the country lived through the dust bowl. We in this part of the country from Ontario well remember the depression. We well remember also the government that was in power at that time.
Hon. members opposite are talking of 11 years of mistakes that supposedly we have made. If there have been some mistakes made, we must also have been doing some good things or else we in Canada would not be prospering as we are today.
In the last Parliament I was part of a committee which studied the tax credit system. When it was brought forward at that time by the Conservative party, we on this side agreed with many of the facets that were brought out. As a matter of fact, I am sure that all hon. members know that it was the Liberal government which brought forward this program in the first place. Therefore, what we have is a Liberal program taken up by a short-lived Tory government now being put in place by a Liberal government.
I suggest that the designation of "Minister of Employment and Immigration", is quite to the point because what we are concerned with is creating jobs and making sure that Canadians are at work. I hear interjections from the other side. We must be on the right track because the Tory speaker says we are doing too much and the NDP speaker says we are not
doing enough, so we must be right on if we are not pleasing those two extreme groups at each end.
The previous Tory speaker said that his government was defeated in part because of the 18-cent tax they were going to put on gasoline. He suggests that even now they were right and they would do it again. However, the people of Canada decided that they were not right. Will they be so arrogant as to say that the people of Canada are wrong and that Canadians cannot make up their minds about what is right for them as opposed to what is right for other people outside of Canada?
The employment tax credit program, Bill C-19, is being extended quite simply because it is effective and it is low cost. However, this government does not intend to follow this single-mindedly, or simple-mindedly, because it is not the answer to all of our problems in Canada. In fact, tax credits as they are at present are most likely to be used by the business sector in areas of high to medium growth that have quite a few people unemployed but generally have less severe rates of unemployment than areas characterized by continuing high unemployment, slow economic growth and minimal levels of business activity. Those communities need another kind of employment development measure. I am sure that the minister and we his colleagues in the House will be suggesting some of these, not only in the course of this debate but in our discussions in the months and years to come.
In British Columbia and in the Yukon, for example, for the fiscal year 1978-79 the employment tax credit program was tremendously effective in creating jobs in the lower mainland, but it had much less impact in other areas. More than half of the employment tax credit program placements in British Columbia and the Yukon were made in the lower mainland while less than 8 per cent were made in the northeastern sector and less than 1 per cent were made in the Skeena and Whitehorse areas. The same pattern applies in other parts of the country. Most of the employment created by the employment tax credit program is concentrated in these urban areas and the program has had much less impact in rural, slow growth areas with minimal levels of business activity.
Since employment and unemployment patterns vary widely across this country, the employment tax credit program, although it has been successful-I quoted the numbers earlier-cannot meet the variant employment needs across this diverse country. Tax credits are highly dependent on employer participation and thus, obviously, have most chance of success in areas with developed business sectors. In isolated northern communities, Indian reserves and outposts, the employment tax credit does not have much of an impact.
We do have direct job-creation programs such as Canada Works, and these have very real advantages for such areas. First, they are targetable to geographic areas. Second, they are able to support a wide range of activities. Third, they are applicable to the needs and capabilities of low or slow growth areas-I refer here to northern Ontario and the Atlantic provinces by way of example. Finally, they are able to support
April 24, 1980

various stages of activities directed toward longer term employment development.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in my region of southern Ontario there is a group of people working under the name of The John Howard Society. Four years ago they came to ask me for money for a specific program. I told them that we were very happy to have the opportunity of giving the people they work with the training they need to work in areas where there is a lack of labour.

The John Howard Society suggested we should set up a bricklayers school so that people could go there to learn the bricklayer's trade. We found that at the end of this particular Canada Works program 85 per cent of those who had been involved in the training were able to secure direct employment.
I might also point out that when the Canada Works program was put in place under the last government specific general areas were targeted, but we in Ontario found we were not eligible for grants notwithstanding the fact that we have high unemployment in the north and in other specific areas of Ontario. The over-all rate of unemployment was not high enough for us to qualify. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues in the House that people who are unemployed in Alberta, in Ontario or in Newfoundland, feel much the same way about unemployment and that we ought to bring in specific programs which are able to respond to the need where it arises. I hope that the Canada Works program, which I trust will be put into place, will operate in such a way as to produce jobs in the most effective way possible.
Direct job-creation measures have a significant impact in precisely those areas where the employment tax credit program has a minimal impact. The different types of program are complementary and the government is committed to using them in a complementary way, building on their strengths and respecting their constraints. Employment development policy should contribute to and increase self-sufficiency of individuals in the labour market and, in the case of geographic areas, strengthen the capacity of the business sector; or where that sector is weak or practically non-existent, it should support the development of such a sector. To be effective, job creation and job-experience measures must be area-specific and situation-specific rather than a uniform package which would apply indiscriminately across the country.
In my area of southern Ontario, in St. Catharines, we have a shipbuilding industry. I recall that some three or four years ago we needed ship welders. We could not find them in our area so we advertised across Canada for people with this skill. We brought in ship welders from Great Britain. The agreement at that time with the shipbuilders in Port Weller was that we would allow these welders to come in provided that over three years the company would train and hire a like number of Canadian welders to take the jobs of the people we had imported. One of the speakers in the debate on Monday mentioned that in Alberta there is presently a great need for welders, and I suggest that such a program might be con-
Employment Tax Credit Act
sidered in the west. So, as I mentioned before, we have area-specific solutions and, in addition, solutions which deal with a precise problem area.
Programs, whether tax credit or cash programs, must be selectively and strategically directed toward clearly identified labour markets and geographic targets. This kind of targeting which respects the diversity of this country and is sensitive to differing needs and opportunities is a fundamental part of the employment development measures which the government is developing and which will be presented to the House in the near future.
As for Bill C-19, I spoke in favour of it when it was first introduced two years ago. When it was presented by the short-lived Conservative government, we supported at that time the tax credit system. We believe that it is effective. We believe that because of its low cost it is more acceptable to the people of Canada, and for our part on this side we wholeheartedly support the measure which the minister has introduced this afternoon.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House and you, sir, will indulge me today. This is that hallowed moment for every member of Parliament when he makes his maiden speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: I do appreciate the rules of relevancy which apply in all debates on specific bills. It would have been nice in the last few days if government members had followed those rules in the throne speech debate, but that is all right. I will do my best, however, to stay within the bounds of the bill and yet say a few things, if 1 may, about my riding and some general matters which affect this country today and which flow, I think, in any consideration of a bill which involves employment tax credits, and therefore employment, unemployment and economic development.
Don Valley West is the heart of Toronto. It is absolutely dead centre geographically. It has had the good sense to have been a Conservative riding for some time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: There was a rare moment in the late sixties and early seventies when the electors of Don Valley elected a member who now sits opposite representing the Downsview area. Don Valley had the good sense, however, to kick him out in 1972 and elect one of the fine Canadians in the economic field, Jim Gillies, who served in this House ably for six years and who is still serving in a public capacity with us because he is a guy of whom we are very proud.
Don Valley West is a peculiar riding in many special ways. Contrary to what most people in Toronto think, it is in fact not a home owner riding; it is composed 55 per cent of tenants. Those are the people who over the years elected me as their

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
alderman before I sought this office. It is a riding which has the highest educational level of any riding in Canada, which is shown clearly by the way it votes.


Mr. Nowlan:: Explain.


John William Bosley: "Explain", says a Conservative member. I do not have to explain that. I am here.


Mr. Ellis:: That is self-evident.


John William Bosley: Don Valley West is a riding which is composed as much of employers as it is of employees. We have residing in our riding many of the major corporate employers. We are blessed with a very low level of unemployment. We are also blessed with some of the most scenic natural beauty one will find in the heart of any city. In Don Valley West there is Hog's Hollow and a ravine system, all of which is unique.
A number of us are interested in urban planning, and it is fantastic, as it is all through my great city, to find large numbers of trees, parks and ravines which complement all of my riding and all of the ridings in Toronto.
My riding feels pretty secure about itself and about its future. It is a riding which tends to be more concerned, therefore, with national issues than with local issues at election time. It is a riding which ever since 1972 has resisted the attempts by hon. members opposite in the now Liberal government to destroy the economic substructure of this country. That intent, in my view, is what leads to the need for such patchwork quilt measures as this, and that is what 1 would like to talk about now, if I may.
If we accept the hidden figures as well as the real figures, we now have something over one million people in this country who are not working. We have this situation, as we have so many of our problems, because those who have held power for too long in this town, as opposed to in our town, have never understood that you cannot run a country any differently from the way you run your bank account for yourself. You simply cannot go on printing money. You simply cannot go on borrowing more money than you spend without its coming back to haunt you. All the measures in the world to try to paper over the cracks-which is what this measure is-will not solve the structural problem called "You are making the foundations crumble". That is precisely what we have been experiencing, and that is precisely why, when the decade of Pierre Trudeau government began, unemployment figures were not nearly so high, inflation figures were not nearly so high and have ever since got worse. We tried in our short term in office-


Mr. Chenier:: And you failed.


John William Bosley: -to turn around the basic economic policy of the Government of Canada. We did that in a whole budget which, in its entirety, would have begun that process of restoring some sense of economic security and economic confidence in this country. It would have led inevitably to the end of the need for measures such as this. The tragedy is not that we
lost. The tragedy is that Canadians will now have to suffer through four or five more years of more and more unemployment and more and more inflation because hon. members opposite simply will not face up to the pure and simple economic fact that you cannot increase your deficit by $3.7 billion in one year. They simply will not face up to the fact that you cannot increase your spending by 13 per cent when the gross national product increase is going to be 10 per cent.
You cannot go on like that, Mr. Speaker, without stripping off the economic fabric of the country, because you force yourself to take more and more money out of the private investment system, thereby driving interest rates up because money is scarce. Unless you pursue the other alternative, and that is simply to print more money and deflate the currency. You cannot go on taking more and more out of the private capital system and then expect it to be continuously able to produce the jobs, growth, wealth and investment that a growing labour force needs.
So if you are pursuing the Alice in Wonderland policy of saying to the people of Canada, "It is okay, we can borrow more and spend more, and it will not cost you now or later," the inevitable response is measures like this which, one has to admit, given the circumstances, may be necessary. But it is crazy to think that you can solve the problem we have in this country by such measures as this. In fact, in a way you are misleading people with a measure like this, because you are attempting to find a solution called government spending or revenue losses to solve a problem that the government itself is creating by spending too much.
So, Mr. Speaker, if you pursue the system which says that the answer is that we will continue to come up with more and more measures which on either side of the government ledger are actually a cost, thereby driving up the gross cost of government, you are causing the problem and then saying you are solving it. 1 heard the parliamentary secretary a minute ago use words which scare me: "What we need are area-specific solutions to this problem; what we need is a selectively planned strategy". More gobbledygook. What we need in this country is a government which will face up to its economic obligations, live within its means and get its hands out of the pockets of the taxpayer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: Further, we need not only a government which has morals, which some Canadians will have difficulty finding in the current government, but a government which is prepared to face decisions and to make some. The irony for me as the labour critic is that we sit in this House dealing with this measure while we cannot get a decision out of the Government of Canada on what to do about Chrysler. So we sit with a measure which cannot possibly benefit in a year as many people as may be laid off as a result of Chrysler's closing, if it occurs. Can we get a yes or no decision out of the Government of Canada on a subject which is so close to the hearts of hon. members opposite, the question of a Yes or a No? No, we cannot. Hon. members opposite know they have to make that
April 24, 1980

decision and that they have to stand up and face their obligations. They have to make a decision soon on that question, and their attempt to put it off and to put it off is hurtful. Whatever the decision is, the attempt to put it off is hurtful because, if they are not going to make a decision to help, they are going to have to make a decision to figure out how to help the people who are going to be laid off.
A much more important issue is what the government are going to do about all the people in this country who are now unemployed and whom the government's economic policies are going to render unemployed. A solution is the moral obligation of the Government of Canada. Either they will face it-which 1 doubt-or they will pursue-which I expect-the same policies we had for 11 years prior to our election in May.
That is exactly what the throne speech contemplates and what the non-budget budget contemplates; that is, we can expect to be asked, as the House of Commons, to deal with more and more measures such as this. We are going to find that, because of the failure to rectify the underlying problem, the political need will be to cover it up even more. That is precisely what we have had and that is precisely what, in political terms, the employment tax credit issue is, namely, an attempt to avoid the fact that the government has caused the unemployment.
So I predict that, because what we have seen so far in this House is a desire to become more and more greedy, this is only the first measure of its kind which we fill face. We will see many more of them, tragic as they are and necessary as they might become because of the policies that underlie the thinking of the government opposite.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) across the way shakes his head. I hope he knows. I am never quite sure what he knows but there have been some suggestions in the House that he did not know everything he needed to know about things he ought to have known. 1 hope he knows that the strategy on which we were working in the employment growth program is right, and it is not just the program we were going to put in place. It was based on a reduction in the growth, the size and the borrowing requirements of the government. All of the programs that the government intend to bring in are doomed to failure if they miss that fundamental point.
If the answer the government give us is more employment tax credit programs paid for by ever-increasing deficits, if the answer they give us is strategic area-specific solutions paid for by ever bigger spending, if the answer they give us is ever more subsidies, if the answer they give us is more and more government intervention to try to solve the problem, then they are causing the problem. You make that decision somewhere, Mr. Speaker. You decide whether you are part of the problem or part of the solution. That is precisely what the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and ministers opposite have to come to grips with.
Employment Tax Credit Act
We over on this side know and are proud to say that we have always had the courage to face those decisions, to make them and to take our chances. I know we lost the election, and nobody over here likes the fact we lost; but we take pride in what we said to Canadians. We said there is no free lunch, and we will go on saying there is no free lunch. We will go on saying that so long as people want to be conned into believing that there is one, or are asking to be taught to be part of the process that makes sure there is no lunch for anybody.
That is the horror of the non-budget of the other night. That is the horror of a throne speech which says openly to Canadians: Hang your heads in shame, you can have no faith in this country on the economic level because your government simply does not understand how a home owner in this country lives, does not understand how anybody who has to meet a payroll lives, and does not understand how anybody who has a banker over his head and has to balance his cheque book lives. That is the frustration of anybody who cares deeply about the unemployment problem in this country.
All of the solutions and strategies we hear miss the unity of the whole. The unity, if ignored, will ruin us. Canadians know that because they register protest with members on this side every day; they know that the time of reckoning is coming. They know that to say to the people of Canada, "You are not going to pay 18 cents in tax for gas" but then to increase the deficit is cheating them. They know that to say to the people of Canada, "We have an economic substructure, an economic policy option called 'we will live within our GNP and our spending programs' ", and then to bring in a non-budget saying spending will increase 13 per cent, is dishonest.
They know that all the employment strategies in the world that are based on economic policies that strip money from the private sector are ruinous. They know and are afraid, and should be, that there is a thing called national bankruptcy. It does not happen because somebody calls your note; it happens when your dollar takes a nosedive because your balance of trade gets out of whack and nobody wants your goods. It happens because nobody will invest in the country, no one trusts the future and because money leaves this country.
Anybody who has been checking with the market and with his friends since the non-budget the other night knows that that process has begun again, the process of people thinking seriously about selling their companies and moving out of this country. If you think about that you will remember that the whole process accelerated about two years ago and became hot and heavy, as anyone knows who is in the brokerage business, as is my family in Toronto. The process accelerated in the last year before the May election, and everybody in the street in the brokerage business knows that. It stopped after the election in May when people began to think about reinvesting in this country, about using their funds to create jobs, not because of a government employment tax credit, not because of DREE programs, not because of programs which encourage non-economic investment, but because of the sense that this country's economy in the future will be good.

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Therefore, it should be no surprise-certainly it was not to me-that after our defeat and the election of the new government there was a pause in street activity while people waited to see what the government were going to do. Starting with the throne speech and, more important, starting since the nonbudget budget, the process has begun again. Anybody who wants to check that can call any broker in Toronto and that is the answer he will get.
So all these programs-and the parliamentary secretary indicated that this is just one of a patchwork of disastrous programs because the government missed the boat of restoring the basic economic health of this country by leaving money where it should be, that is, in private citizens' hands where it would be spent wisely-are immoral. The private industry sector in this country is the only sector in which you can create jobs. If you kid yourself that you are helping people by putting out a program which says on its face it is going to assist them but really strips them of the ability to invest and of the rewards for investing, and so long as we believe as a nation through our government that wealth is a bad thing and we should tax it away-which started with the nonsensical capital gains tax in this country-so long as we pursue that road, no program of this kind will solve the problem.
It is rather like saying that the house in which you live is in super shape because you just painted the outside white, but you did nothing about the fact that the roof is still leaking and destroying everything inside. If you do not deal with the foundation problems, if you do not deal, as the western premiers indicated the other day, with the structural economic problems in this country, if you pursue policies that lead to the incredibly high interest rates which we now face, if you pursue policies which lead directly to massive foreclosures in the housing industry, if you pursue policies which force people out of work, then when you come forward and say you have a solution that amounts to $1 or $2.50 a job, you are doing something that is despicable because you are saying, on the one hand, "I will create a job", and on the other hand, "I will create ten unemployed." Boy, that is not exactly the way to grow anything!
Anyone who does any investing knows that an investment where one wins a dollar and loses ten is not so terrific. Yet because these programs have been generated over the last 11 years and will now be continued, one has to explain to Canadians why, if those programs were so good, unemployment in that period increased from 300,000 to 1,200,000. If the programs and the economic policies are so darned successful after all these years of work, why are we in a mess?
Do we get answers which deal with the fact that we are in a mess? Do we get answers which deal with the structural problems? No, we get, "Let's change the expiry date on the employment tax credit". Do we get a budget? Do we get an economic statement of the policies of this government? No, we get a statement which does not say anything about economic policies. The government try to hide and say that it is a
non-budget. The fact is that the budget presented in the House refused to deal with the problems in the country. That is the fundamental reality. So we do not have a new government; we have the old government made worse. We have the old government continuing to do everything wrong.
1 think most Canadians will know that because of those policies and that reality we will have increasing unemployment and incredible problems dealing with our own interest rates. Inflation will not diminish and we will be worse off in international terms. What does this mean? Perhaps other members of the House will speak about what is sometimes called economic nationalism, but those of us who believe very, very strongly in making Canada strong economically, those of us who want this country to be strong, know that the real problem being created is the inability to make Canada strong because we mortgage ourselves forever and forever until ultimately we have to go to the only banker left, that is, people who are not in this country.
Instead of developing a greater ability to control our own destiny and to deal with the problems facing the country, we spend our time, through the policies of this government, making sure that we have less ability to deal with them, less freedom to move, less opportunity to grow and less opportunity to employ people. That is incredibly frustrating to anyone who wants to invest and put his money to work helping the creation of jobs at this time in this country.
1 thank Mr. Speaker for his indulgence in this matter. I tried to stay as relevant as I could to the topic before us. Let me just say to the voters of Don Valley West how grateful I am that they sent me here for the second time. Last May does not seem that long ago. Sometimes it is impossible to believe that we have had two elections, but we have and here we are. I do not think any member would disagree that there is no greater privilege than to serve in this chamber. Even when one disagrees with hon. members opposite or sometimes disagrees with one's friends, in this House are collected 282 representatives of the greatest people in the world. Regardless of all the partisan arguing, name-calling and the rest of it, I do not think anyone in this House feels any less than that the people of Canada are extraordinarily well served by all 282 members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, my statement will be quite short. Bill C-19 now under consideration is an important bill since it directly affects over 50,000 jobs and provides funds of $100 million. Considering that most of those jobs will be filled by young people under 25, as indicated by statistics, I think it is important that hon. members pass it quickly because there are many people in Canada who directly depend on those funds aimed at extending that legislation until 1982.
I know quite well what unemployment means for young people, being myself one of their representatives, and I think that in spite of the comments made by the opposition a few minutes ago it is essential to have such projects to assure the
April24, 1980

continuity of the program and stimulate the creation of employment. Of course a program such as this one may fall short because it is temporary but I would like to say a few words about what it will achieve in the long term. In the shorter term, it goes without saying that the project is important because, as I said earlier, there are people right now who are waiting for the program to be implemented directly in certain regions of the country and who desperately need that kind of assistance to undertake projects which obviously would otherwise be doomed or whose loss would at least allow the rate of unemployment to rise considerably. But my remarks to the minister relate to the longer term and in that respect l would like to know whether his department has made a review of the actual employment structure or whether it has plans to allow young Canadians to join the labour force directly with assurance of financial and job security.
What is really dramatic about the plight of these young workers, men and women alike, who graduate from community or other colleges or from universities or simply from high schools, is that when they apply for jobs with any employer anywhere the answer is always the same: there are no vacancies or, if any, they are always temporary jobs. And then we wonder as members of Parliament or simply as ordinary citizens why there are so many protests or why delinquency is so rampant. I feel that one of the basic reasons is truly the shortage of jobs.
Well, this bill is important because its short-term objective is precisely to create jobs, and this is its first quality. But its greatest shortcoming is that after 52 weeks, as various statistics have shown, our young people are again faced with the shortage of jobs, which is why after a while they become demoralized, and it is impossible to motivate them again into either finding places for themselves in society or merely contributing to our national productivity. And as an hon. member opposite mentioned a while ago, the government must direct all its resources and energy toward creating productive jobs and not merely artificial ones which finally make it necessary for us to raise taxes and increase our deficit. Sometimes jobs are created which are more or less meaningless.
The employers who to a large extent take advantage of these programs-75 per cent according to some statistics, and 82 per cent according to others-are small and medium-size corporations, and I should like the minister in a little while to tell us whether profitability or at least assessment studies have been carried out with the corporations involved. Do the small and medium-size firms, industries and corporations which have hired young and older people say they are satisfied with these programs? Can they give evidence that their ability to produce and their profitability have increased during the 52 weeks the program was in operation? Those are so many answers I would like to hear from the minister, because in our region this program is not particularly well known. And 1 would like at this time to advise the minister that when it comes to programs
Employment Tax Credit Act
such as this one, the information may be deficient. Naturally, I represent an extremely remote riding, and when speaking of job creation, I more particularly have in mind what we call the lower north shore of the St. Lawrence, the area from Sept-iles to Blanc Sablon, 400 miles of coast inhabited by fishermen. If we examine this program we can see that on the whole the north shore does not have full coverage, so much so that the area does not even appear on the diagram. So I would like to hear from the minister whether it would be possible to have better promotion for regions which are more or less covered by this program, in many cases because of remoteness.
Another aspect of this program that I consider important in the short term, and I emphasize this, is the valorisation of work. It is most important in such a program to make sure not only that young people could be quickly integrated but also to ensure some continuity. Was a study undertaken at the department level? Where do those young people go after spending a certain time in those programs? This is important. Of course one of the positive aspects of this program is that it gives work to some people. It is even, I think, the fundamental aspect of the program. But what happens to those young people after the 52 or 60 weeks, because we know that in many cases it may become a permanent job. When considering department statistics we realize that after 52 weeks many jobs which were created by the program were maintained. But are those young people who stay for a long time after those 52 weeks covered by the statistics? And after that, where do they go exactly?
This is not mentioned in the reports of the department, and often, in the very structure of the job-creation process, it is one of the elements which are ignored. It would be useful to know how much follow-up is made by the department in such a program.
It should also often be a good thing to enter some elements of the compatibility of the regions in those programs. It means that in a place such as ours, on the north shore, when speaking of job creation, we speak about skilled jobs. Often, those who could enter such a program do not meet that first requirement. With regard to the requirements, they should be more flexible. 1 noticed that the criteria are often extremely vague. For instance, the statement is made that anyone 18 to 64 years of age is eligible for the program. But one soon realizes when a worker goes directly to see the employer at a manpower centre that a whole series of qualifications have to be met, which results in the unemployed remaining without a job after having gone to the manpower centre to apply for admission to that program.
As for the programs themselves, Mr. Speaker, does the department ever wonder about whether or not the hundreds of millions of dollars are really spent on the programs when, in fact, a considerable amount of money goes to large companies? I am thinking here of the multinationals. Does the amount of money intended for companies go to the multinationals? That is important, because I feel that those companies

April 24, 1980
382________________________________________
Employment Tax Credit Act can afford to hire employees. We would be better off granting that money, as much as possible, to small and medium-sized companies. A moment ago, I spoke of 80 per cent, but there remains 20 per cent, I should very much like to know, to find out exactly how that 20 per cent is spent. Do the large companies get that money, companies which could create employment without government subsidies?
In closing, may I simply ask the minister not to create a task force-because we know very well how that can end up, we are fully aware of all that would entail-but to see to it that within the next 12 months his department gives us a brief analysis of the situation, so that steps can be taken before 1982 to create jobs over the longer term. Should the strategy for long-term job creation not include elements from the world of labour as well as management? Because, and that also ties in with the implementation of collective agreements, it is often very difficult to fit in the young when they first come on the job market because they do not have any seniority. But would it not be worthwhile to have representatives of the business community, the labour movement and the student population meet to see what could be done for young people with respect to long-term job creation?
In my view, the measures described in this program, in Bill C-19, are obviously important but, as one member of the opposition said earlier, as we said when we were the opposition and even before then, they are merely palliative measures. In the short term, they help, they obviously allow some people to gain experience and enable industries to engage in experimental work; these are advantages I will admit. However, for those intending to settle down, to join the Canadian community, to produce, to raise a family, to plan their life, it is more important that we succeed in working within the economic system to generate long-term jobs.
In concluding, I would therefore ask the minister if his department could not undertake a brief study of these conditions in an attempt to give certain directions which a committee of the House could study with a view to recommending ways which would give our young people and even those not so young the permanent jobs they are looking for. One is always amazed to see how unstable and how demoralized today's society is, for let us not delude ourselves, the outlook for today's youth is bleak. They seem to think that nothing lasts for very long, that everything is temporary and that governments are more or less helpful.
Therefore, in the wake of a short study which would give us some direction to work for the long term, in the coming year, between 1980 and 1982, we could really try to develop an employment policy which would revive youth's faith in the future and allow the department to create productive jobs; as a
result, the whole Canadian economy would be better off, in my view.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the next hon. member, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble)-Public Service-Criticism in report of Auditor General; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Penitentiaries-Showing of sex film to inmates; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish)-Government expenditures-Improved financial information to Parliament.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, this bill presently before the House contemplates an amendment to the Employment Tax Credit Act and has anticipated therein the duration of a period of two years, to end on March 31, 1982. The minister's press release accompanying the presentation of this bill has the rather illuminating statement attached thereto, that this will be a "temporary measure". This bill has all the appearance of being temporary in the same fashion as one might apply that term to the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The minister went on to say in his press release that the measure is being "designed to ensure that an effective job-creation program continues while an employment strategy is being prepared for early announcement in the House of Commons". That begs the question of why an employment strategy is required. The answer is not hard to discern. There are more Canadians seeking employment in our country than there are available positions to satisfy them.
We are now entitled to ask why that is the situation. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his non-debatable budget explained that international circumstances dictate our economic climate. As a matter of fact, as I listened to his rather sage comments in this House I was left with the very distinct impression that I must have been sitting in the U.S. Congress.
April 24, 1980

The real answer is that the government has badly managed the business of governing Canada and has negotiated international commitments which have not been in the best interests of our nation. We are currently losing $3 billion this year on an auto pact agreement with the United States. We have become a nation assembling the auto parts produced around the world, not only in the United States, the party to the contract that we negotiated.
Our negotiators misjudged the commercial advantages to our American partners in that arrangement by not taking into account that the parent corporations of the companies to benefit from the arrangement, through the control of their foreign subsidiaries, would see that a great deal of the auto parts that were to be assembled in Canada were manufactured in nations where wages are considerably lower than might have been paid in either country that signed the pact. We also failed to recognize that a combination of the after-market with respect to parts combined with the attractive nature of the original equipment market would exceed in value the economic benefits to be gained by the nation involved in assembling those parts.
The government has continued to pursue a policy which will preclude Canadian business from exploiting the arms industry. I had occasion to listen with some dismay to the former minister of defence in the previous Liberal government when he announced that he thought that the creation of a Canadian armaments industry would be unhealthy. Unhealthy indeed, when this government has just negotiated a contract for the supply of fighter aircraft for our armed forces which, when the contract is concluded, will see something in the neighbourhood of a $4 billion expenditure, a large portion of which will flow out of this country into another nation. We have concluded the purchase of leopard tanks from Germany. We have at the same time concluded the purchase of armoured personnel carriers from another European nation.
The government's answer to the decline of research and development in this country, which would not only have permitted the development of an armaments industry, but spinoff industries as well, is to announce in the Speech from the Throne the lofty hope and expectation that it will commit itself to over-all expenditures on research and development of 1.5 per cent of the value of the gross national product of Canada.
It is somewhat illuminating to note that in 1975, the last year in which figures were published with respect to research and development and its relationship to the gross national product, the United States spent fully 2.35 per cent of its GNP on research and development. Germany spent 2.6 per cent and Japan spent 2 per cent on research and development. Canada spent the rather insignificant amount of 1 per cent of its GNP. We are promised that that figure will be increased by 50 per cent under the current government, though we were not given any time as to when this miracle will be accomplished.
I urgently direct to the attention of this House the commitment of the former Conservative government of striking a goal
Employment Tax Credit Act
of 2.5 per cent expenditure on research and development. We see the results of the failure by the government in this area in this bill, Bill C-19, which asks that more federal funds be spent on paying the salaries, at least in part, of employees in private industry, which means more federal funds extracted from the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada.
What are some other reasons which come to mind as the causes of unemployment? Surely the inability of this government to fix a price for oil must be regarded as one of the most significant reasons. The very tight-lipped but amusing response of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in this House this afternoon might have been appropriate on the campaign trail, but it is hardly appropriate when dealing with the day to day business obligations of the Government of Canada. He told us that the price of oil would be determined on the basis of a blending of prices which consisted of the blending of conventional oil-or, as he referred to it, the old oil-tar sands or synthetic oil products and imported crude oil.
So much for the blending, but what of the price? Indeed, what is the price that may be considered by Canadian businesses when they are determining their costs of operation? I had occasion some time ago to discuss with a constituent of mine, whose corporation was in the business of paving roads for municipalities, the anticipated cost of one of the essential ingredients in his raw materials. Am I to say to him that today in this House the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has clearly established a price that he may use as the basis for tendering on contracts which he must make in advance for a period of one year? When this constituent submits his tendering documents, should he say that the price for which he will perform his services will be a blended price, consisting of the price of labour, the mark-up for overhead and profit, as well as the blended price of oil, one of the essential ingredients in his raw materials?
The answer to that question is, very clearly, that it is nonsense, both for business and for government. Predicting with some degree of reasonable certainty what will happen tomorrow is most assuredly one of the hallmarks of astute business judgment.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the intervention by the hon. member opposite is very interesting. I would like to inquire, sir, whether you think it is relevant to the bill before the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is aware of the rules of relevance relating to debate in this House of Commons. It has been noted that relevance has not been a stringently administered rule in the Canadian House. I will accept the observations of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), with the suggestion that perhaps the hon. member may wish to consider his comments in that light.


John Albert Gamble: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I considered those elements of relevancy in preparing my remarks on this bill. The nature of the bill itself, which contemplates the advancing

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
of funds to continue a program, automatically opens the flood gates of a searching mind as to why the funds are required. In my mind the funds are required because there is unemployment in Canada. If, however, the learned member believes there is no unemployment in Canada, then my approach in addressing this House should be considerably different from what it is.


Charles L. Caccia: My mind is not as searching as yours.


John Albert Gamble: I recognize that, and that is why the hon. member is sitting where he is. The comments which I make here, incidentally, are made by way of a maiden speech in this House, despite the fact that I had the honour of sitting here in the Thirty-first Parliament. They are confined, of course, because of the rules of relevance. I am making these remarks because I believe that I can no longer wait to address those customary general remarks which are characteristic of a maiden speech to my constituents, having regard to the urgency confronting the nation from the way in which this government intends to conduct the affairs of this nation.
I might also add that I am prompted to make these remarks because we are confronted with monetary and fiscal measures which were introduced by the Minister of Finance in a nondebatable form, and they in themselves are an inducement to deal as best we can with those matters that lie in the road ahead of us.
Mr. Speaker, the business community in Canada that is to be assisted while the government allegedly assists those people who are unemployed keeps a very watchful eye on the functions of government. Aside from the 5 per cent temporary surtax on corporate profits that appeared in the non-debatable budget of the Minister of Finance, we are treated to the prospect of further deficit financing of the kind that can only deter business from the expansion and development that is so necessary to the financial well-being of our nation and its people.
I direct your attention in this regard, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that at the conclusion of the 1980-81 fiscal period we shall have a deficit of $14,165 billion. We shall indeed have an "interest only" element of the cost of carrying the national debt in the neighbourhood of $10.5 billion. These projections can do nothing but send a cold shiver down the spines of Canadian businessmen. If one thing is certain it is this: the day must come when the piper must be paid. That day is rapidly approaching, Mr. Speaker. Surely no business in Canada is in a position where it wishes to expand and develop if it is confronted with the prospect of paying the monumental taxes that would have to be paid in order to satisfy the obligations and debts run up by the Government of Canada.
While the Minister of Finance may speak about our current economic problems and in some way lay the blame upon international circumstances and the declining advances in the United States, I do wish he would have some regard for the efforts made by the United States government to balance its
budget and cut its deficit. Instead of that, we are faced with ever-increasing deficits in this country, none of which are commendable to business and none of which will induce business to expand its operations and remove the need for a bill similar to Bill C-19.
Is it always to be the function of government to destroy free enterprise and then encroach upon the funds of the taxpayers of this country, as is the case in this piece of legislation, in order to rectify the errors it made initially? I submit that is not its function.
What of the application hitherto of the Employment Tax Credit Act which it is sought to amend today? That plan has been a bureaucrat's dream with application forms and paper work which are anathema to private enterprise. In its typical fashion, the government's answer to strangling bureaucracy has been to create more of the same. We can recall very vividly the creation of the office of the commissioner of paper burden whose first task was to send out questionnaires requesting answers to be submitted by the business community.
The real answer to the minister's suggestion that this measure is but temporary while the government develops an employment strategy is that the government already has an employment strategy. It has demonstrated what it is and it has also demonstrated that it does not wish to change it. The strategy is to take up the unemployment in this nation through the public service.
In Canada we have a public service payroll of $8.6 billion, as shown by the report of the Auditor General tabled in this House as recently as last week. From that report we know that the typical production level of the public service is 60.8 per cent compared with production levels in private enterprise of 80.7 per cent. As a matter of fact, the production level in private enterprise is on occasion higher.
We also know that in undertaking the survey the Auditor General omitted the Post Office from his investigation. We know as well that while the 60.8 efficiency level was an average, some of the averages were as low as or less than 55 per cent.
As a member of the last Parliament I served on the public accounts committee of this House which had as its chairman the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). At that time, having regard to the way in which the minister functions, I was convinced that he had a genuine regard for the proper expenditure of money belonging to the taxpayers of this country and had some real concern for finding remedies for waste and extravagance and a means of instilling in the public service of this country a sense of responsibility which has hitherto been lacking.
At that time we endeavoured to determine how some of the functions of the public service might best be amended in order that this efficiency and responsibility might be instilled. I was somewhat surprised, therefore, when questioning the President of the Treasury Board, to find that he thrust back to the committee of which he was recently a member the task of
April 24, 1980

determining how to solve the problems of efficiency and competence in the public service.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that public accounts committees of this House will come and go. Nothing will be achieved unless government takes a firm step to ensure that both management in the public service and individual efforts on the part of public servants are directed to granting to the taxpayers of this country something that they deserve-a fair day's work for the pay received.
Very clearly, as the Auditor General has indicated, as a consequence of the deficiency in performance there is an excess of employees in the public service-if we are to have regard only to the figures-of 24 per cent. Otherwise we might draw the inference, as the Auditor General has, that with the present staff 32 per cent more production might be achieved. That production is the minimum recommended by the Auditor General-the 80 per cent minimum, not the standard average that is to be found in private enterprise of 87 per cent. As I have indicated, this is without regard to the functioning of the Post Office Department.
It is, Mr. Speaker, an abuse of the process for government to intervene, when attempting to solve the unemployment problem in our country, by creating more employment in the public service. We learned from the Speech from the Throne not that the government recognize that the Canadian public is fed up with too much government, but that the public wishes to have more efficient government, not less.
I do not know where the ministers of the Crown have been when surveys have been taken by Gallup indicating where the concern of the public lies in this area. There was a time when big business was regarded as being the most oppressive, offensive element in society. There was a time after that when the public had the view that labour unions were the most oppressive, offensive element in Canadian society. However, today it is this government and its ever-extending authority, its ever-reaching arms into the pockets of the public and its placing on the backs of Canadians of undue burdens.
The process is made easier by the creation of new positions, by expanding unnecessary work loads, and by hiring programs in the public service which are clearly demonstrated by the report of the Auditor General to be unnecessary. It is essential for the government not only when it presents a bill such as C-19, but when it presents any bill calling for the expenditure of public moneys in the fashion that it does here, to have regard to the manner in which those public moneys are spent.
The public recognizes that there is not an inexhaustible supply of funds which may either be drawn upon today or hopefully drawn upon in the future by postponing the agony. It is time that the government today recognizes that as well, and takes those remedial steps which are essential.
We were told in the Speech from the Throne that Canadians expect action, and action now. That is true. However, to repeat that time and again will not solve the problem without action. Study groups, re-examination, the appointment of commis-
Employment Tax Credit Act
sions, examination on an annual basis of the Auditor General's report, will not solve the problem. The problem will only be solved by concrete affirmative action taken by this government in order to satisfy the legitimate demands of the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate all those who sit in your seat for their impartial stand in the way that they rule this House.
When listening to the last speaker, I was interested when he was interrupted on a point of order by a government member. The government member was, of course, asking whether the hon. member who had the floor was being relevant to the topic. My comment would be: is the legislation relevant to the problem?
When Bill C-23 was introduced in January, 1978, all parties agreed that it should have speedy passage. However, the New Democratic Party spokesman in the debate at that time, Mr. Stu Leggatt from New Westminster, had no illusions about the ability of the bill or the program to make a dent in unemployment. I quote from Hansard of that date:
This bill will make such a small impact on Canadian unemployment that I am surprised a backbencher did not introduce it.
Neither are we today under any illusion as to how successful this bill will be in coming to grips with one of the problems that face this country. That is the unemployment problem. The proposed measure is clearly inadequate. It could be described as a band-aid measure, except that it is a band-aid to an already existing band-aid. In other words, the minister is proposing to fix up a problem by just putting another band-aid on a program that was introduced two years ago as a band-aid at that time.


An hon. Member:: It won't stick.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It will not stick, Mr. Speaker. Instead of proposing measures to help meet the needs of the millions of unemployed in this country, the minister is only extending a temporary program. Throughout the recent election the people of Canada heard that there was a new team of Liberals, a new and improved Liberal party, yet in this measure, as in the throne speech and in the mini-budget the other night, we find that the Liberal party has nothing new to offer Canada.
There is some history we should consider when we look at this legislation. If you really look at it, you find that it is the same legislation that was introduced two years ago. The Liberal party at that time introduced a temporary measure. Instead of meeting this crisis with any concrete program, any over-all program, we get the same program extended for one more year.
It is a typical Liberal patchwork and band-aid approach to the problems that face this nation. It has been caused by an increase in foreign ownership, an increase in the tendency of the Liberal party to try to deal with a problem by throwing money at it. It is a problem which is increased by the hodgepodge approach to make-work programs like this one, the Local Initiatives Program, Opportunities for Youth, and so on.

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act


Mr. Epp:: You were in favour of them.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) says we are in favour of these programs. That is only because the Liberal government and the Conservative government which preceded it did nothing to solve the problems of the unemployed. We have been forced to accept these temporary measures. We would love to see this country have an economic development strategy. We would like to see an industrial stragety to develop this country and its resources.
Unfortunately, the hon. member for Provencher is right. We have not had anything else, so we are stuck with this type of program. In each case these programs have created some jobs. A certain amount of dignity was restored to individuals who received jobs through these programs, and the federal Liberal government was let off the hook for a little while. However, unemployment has continued to grow. Foreign ownership has grown. Foreign investment has increased within this country.
Two factors have become apparent. First, these band-aid programs are not working. These band-aids which were supposed to cover the sores of the Canadian economy became tattered and weak. The pressure of public opinion caused by Liberals trying to offer these types of programs was to say that we need something more concrete, yet the Liberal government has not met these concerns.
Ultimately these programs have done nothing to solve the structural unemployment among the hidden unemployed or others in our society. This measure was introduced two years ago when the public, the unemployed, and the opposition parties were clamouring for measures to deal with the tragedy of unemployment. Bill C-23 is what they gave us.
This is a typical patchwork, band-aid approach that has been used time and again. A program is announced, millions are spent, and the program proves ineffective. What happens? A new program is announced or a program is extended, more millions are spent, and again the problem is not met.
In 1968 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was first elected to his position to implement a just society, the unemployment rate in Canada was 4.5 per cent. It is now 8.6 per cent. In Quebec in 1968 it was 6.1 per cent. It is now almost 11 per cent. In the Atlantic provinces unemployment in 1968 was only 6 per cent. It is now approximately 13 per cent. What has been the advantage of these programs? Almost nothing. Unemployment has increased. The control of our economy has decreased.
This program is a band-aid because it ignores those groups and areas of the country which need jobs the most. Yes, the program does contain a provision for higher rates of assistance to regions where existing employment opportunities are inadequate, and its supporters claim it has been able to create
50,000	jobs. Yet what does it do to train people who need training in order to get a long-term livelihood? It does nothing. What does it do for women and young people? It does almost nothing. And, to be honest, there is no proof that it has even
created the 50,000 jobs the minister talks about. There is no proof these jobs would not have been created through other measures. Look at some of the groups which should be helped by an employment tax program, or an employment program of any sort. Let us look at the women of this country.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Women bear-


An hon. Member:: Children.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, women do bear children. It reminds me of the Premier of Manitoba who was one of our greatest breeders, as he himself claimed, in the legislature of that province. The women came back with the remark that he was one of the greatest breeders of contempt. So, of course, it is not surprising to hear a Conservative's comment in this House. Women bear disproportionately the brunt of high unemployment, of inflation, and of cutbacks in government services. In the last ten years or so there have been severe effects on women caused by economic mismanagement of this country.
About 400,000 women in the labour force are without work. Almost 9 per cent of women workers are jobless compared with 5 per cent for men, and this does not include "hidden" unemployment, the real rate of unemployment among women which is much higher. The real rate should include the housewife who would be looking for a job if she thought she could find one; the real rate of unemployment should include the welfare mother who has looked for a job for months, has become discouraged, and has given up.
Then again, when any one of these women does find a job she can bet she will earn less than a man would earn. In 1970 she would earn less, proportionate to what a man earned, than she would have earned in 1968. Today, women make 58 cents for every dollar earned by men-if they have a job.
What we saw during the last decade was an increase in these problems, a story of inaction on the part of government. Take the year 1975, for example, also known as International Women's Year. The Liberals paid tribute by implementing a program of cutbacks to women's programs, disproportionate lay-offs in the public service, discriminatory unemployment insurance changes, and a refusal to enforce the equal pay for work of equal value clause in the human rights legislation.
The minister can go to women's groups, as he did last night, and speak out against Conservative thinking, and call out for the need for social policies, but when he shouts out against these neo-conservatives, as he calls them, he should remember that it is his party which, through its actions, has become the neo-conservative party of Canada.


Ian Deans: Well said.


Rodney Edward Murphy: One of the other groups which is being affected has been the youth of this country. When Canadian unemployment was 8.6 per cent last month, the rate for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 was 15.1 per cent. Getting that first job, finding employment suitable to their
April 24, 1980

skills and training, has become harder and harder for young Canadians, especially within the last ten years. These young people will increasingly refuse to be just statistics as they appear in government figures, because without providing a security job future for young Canadians, Canada has no future at all. What has this program done for young people? Almost nothing.
I should like to turn to another group of people who have been ignored by the government of the day and the government of the last 16 years. I am talking about the native people, especially those in northern areas. One only has to look at the Churchill constituency which 1 represent where, according to government statistics, the unemployment rate is only slightly higher than the Manitoba rate in general. Yet if you travel from community to community, as I have done over the last couple of years, you see the hidden unemployed. These are the people we do not find in government statistics.
Among the residents of Manitoba's northern native communities the actual unemployment rate is about 75 per cent; in some communities it is over 90 per cent. As I say, these people are not listed in government figures, but they are unemployed whether the government says they are or not. For that matter, these people are hidden from the whole manpower system. In most of these communities, the welfare system is a way of life.
The lack of planning in the Canadian economy in general, and the "pull the resources out of the north" mentality reflected in the history of northern development, have given nothing back to Canada's original residents. The occasional project has given some employment to native people but, by and large, there have been no quota systems which guarantee employment for native people. Training and long-term planning to benefit the north is what these people need, not the band-aid suggested by the minister today.
One of the speakers supporting the government said it was okay that this program did not help the remote communities because they had Canada Works programs. Madam Speaker, that is not true in Manitoba. It is not true in Saskatchewan, and it is not true in other parts of the country because the Conservative government we had a few months ago took those programs away from the people of northern Saskatchewan and from the people of northern Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Rodney Edward Murphy: An hon. member on the government side says "shameful", and I agree with him. Anywhere else in Canada, and with respect to any group of Canadians, 75 per cent unemployment would be an abomination. The unemployment among our native population is an international disgrace and, as I said, this program will do nothing to help these people.
It is a sad fact that the companies which will benefit from this program do not exist in communities where there is native unemployment.
The regions of this country will not benefit from this program. Regional disparity is a testimony to Canada's history of unplanned economic activity and the growth of foreign
Employment Tax Credit Act
investment which has tended only to increase the problem. Development still occurs in the centre, not in the hinterland. When market forces and companies are left to parcel out jobs and wages on their own, history tells us that they will leave too many people out of work in the maritimes, too many Quebeckers in low wage industries like the clothing industry, and too little manufacturing of any kind in western Canada.
Unemployment statistics can only tell part of the story because all that happens is we talk about known unemployment; the figures do not deal with the hidden unemployment in this country. At the same time they do not take into account the differences between the have and the have-not areas of this country. At times when the economic situation is not good, it is the poorer areas which suffer the most. For example, in March the unofficial unemployment rate in Newfoundland was 15 per cent but real unemployment was closer to 30 per cent. This was not the case ten years ago. The unemployment rate in that part of Canada has become worse and worse with each year of Liberal rule.
Statistics Canada does not include the 15 per cent of the population which is unemployed but hidden. These people do not have a foothold in the labour force. In a country as wealthy as Canada it is a disgrace that we should have regions where over 30 per cent of the population is unemployed. Again, what will this program do to correct regional disparities? It will do nothing, or almost nothing.
What we need is an active regional development program. We have to create an economic situation where all Canadians share equally in our country's wealth. We need full employment programs, investment guidelines, and new policies for federal programs such as this one, which would make sure that they benefit the regions, especially those regions needing economic development. The government must commit itself to a full employment program by establishing legislative targets and timetables each year for the number of jobs to be created in each region.
We also need an aggressive stance on affirmative action programs. The New Democratic Party fundamentally disagrees with the programs of the Liberal and Conservative parties. To the New Democratic Party, affirmative action means making basic alterations in the job market and in the conditions of work to guarantee that women, young people, native people, and people from outlying regions will get a foothold within the work force.


An hon. Member:: Action, not public relations.


Rodney Edward Murphy: As the hon. member says, action, not just public relations.
Affirmative actions must have the force of law. Compliance has to be compulsory rather than voluntary.
Any government moneys supplied to the private sector must be dependent upon a situated and in-place affirmative action program. The New Democratic Party recognizes that the

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
promotion of equality in the work force cannot be created like a train which runs along its own tracks and on its own steam. Instead, we believe that the concerns of those traditionally excluded from the labour force must be met in part by the terms of reference for government purchasing, for government action, and for government leadership in rebuilding our economy. Equal footing by groups within this country will not appear magically, but what we do need is government that is committed to action to meet the problems of the unemployed. Only through positive measures by government to ensure this participation and planned direction to the economy will such equality emerge.
It is this type of band-aid approach which has allowed the government to shirk its duties. Instead of having a comprehensive program to meet the growth and changing needs of our population, this government, and the Liberal party which it represents, has been afraid to meet the challenge. It has consistently opted for short-term programs and for tax writeoffs, and the Liberals have prayed that somehow things would get better.
Well, they have not got better, and as I have proved in today's speech, things have got worse and worse with each year of Liberal administration. The Liberal party and the government must face facts. It will never be possible to meet the challenge of the unemployed unless the government develops a comprehensive program to develop our entire economy so that we benefit from the energy sources and the other resources, both natural and human, that we as a nation possess.
Finally, at the heart of Canada's unemployment problem is the obvious tragic failure to develop an industrial development policy. At the root of things we are having difficulty providing jobs for Canadians because economic decisions are not being made in this country. We have allowed most of our third sector, our manufacturing sector, to come under the control of the multinationals which have no commitment and no loyalty to this country. The operations of the branch plants are geared not to the creation of Canadian jobs but to the maximum profit for the head office which is situated abroad. And when the Canadian branch plants are shut down, our communities and our labour force bear the brunt of unemployment and depression.
From the mining town in B.C. to the sawmills in the same province, to the Windsor auto lay-offs, to the maritime fishing villages, Canadian people have lost their jobs when the multinational or U.S. company has cut back in Canada, and this bill will do nothing to solve that problem.
We will never truly be able to do anything about unemployment in this country until we have a government which will gain control over the development of Canadian resources and create Canadian industry and Canadian jobs for Canadians.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the minister on his appointment to his onerous task. I hope he realizes the big and very important job he has.
The first thing he said to us today was that he wanted us to pass this bill through the House hurriedly. In the last week and a half all I have heard in this House is, "Please give us your co-operation". We will co-operate, but we are going to examine each and every bill which goes through this House responsibly.
This is my second term. In the first term I was here I did not see the co-operation one might expect, especially when we were bringing in bills which were introduced by a previous government and it was a matter of some housekeeping. I heard hon. members opposite, including the minister, speaking at some length on some of the bills which should have received relatively fast passage. If I remember correctly, the First thirty days of the last Parliament were taken up with a great deal of unnecessary chatter.
The previous speaker, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), made some very good points. He used the term "band-aid"-a band-aid effort-and this employment program is just that. It is a band-aid program. It is brought in to let the people of Canada think that the government is doing something to create jobs.
In the last campaign one of the most frequently asked questions by young people of me was, "What future do I have in this great country; will I have a job; will I have a meaningful job?" I am not convinced that this bill answers that question in any way, shape or form. The minister has not presented any meaningful statistics on the performance of this program over the last two years. Were the jobs which were created, meaningful jobs? Are they still in existence, or have industries closed down? 1 am not sure that this program is helping the people it should be helping. Is it helping the struggling young entrepreneur who is trying to get off the ground, trying to expand his company or trying to create a company? I do not think it is helping him because he probably does not have any taxable income for the first number of years.
Rather than bringing in some of these old bills and extending them, I challenge the minister to present a meaningful package. The process could start with a budget, if the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) could screw up enough courage to present one to the people of Canada. That is where it should start, so that the private sector can plan its business over the next few years.
I am concerned about the youth of Canada. I have here some frightening statistics. I see that 410,000 people between the ages of 15 and 24 are out of work; 202,000 of them are between the ages of 20 and 24, which is an age which is very important in the development of a person's life when starting out in a career. I think the moneys which this program requires could be much better spend elsewhere. For example, let us talk about the unemployment insurance program for just a minute.
Before I start on that subject, I note the time. I would like to continue my remarks at eight o'clock. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
April 24, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rose):: It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate was interrupted at six o'clock, the motion for second reading of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, was under consideration. The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) had the floor.


John Horton McDermid: I ask for your indulgence for just a moment. I notice that the Acting Clerk is in the House and I wanted to say in passing how pleased I was that I had the pleasure of having Mr. Pelletier swear me in. It is good to see him in the House. I know he is filling some big shoes very capably.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Also, I heard the good news today that the Clerk is finally home from the hospital. I know we are all pleased to hear that.
When we recessed for the dinner hour this evening, I was in the process of discussing briefly Bill C-19, this band-aid measure which has been going on for a few years and is being extended for another year without proof that it is really working. If it is that great, why not expand the program? I was about to say that perhaps the government should turn its scrutiny to other areas which need more attention in the area of the economy, such as the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This makes for interesting statistics when you understand that the overpayments under that program amount to some $300 million, and that the program in many instances is a disincentive to work.
I consulted a personnel firm in the city of Toronto which had shown some interest in our social system and benefits. They had complained that they could not get people to work although they had jobs available. I asked the individual to whom I spoke to expand on that comment, because we hear that remark quite often but we are not given examples. Let me give you a few examples. I will just use first names.
The first is Michelle, unemployed, registered for temporary work in this firm. She was offered a position with one of the well-known downtown companies just for one day, but she refused it because she had to go shopping with her mother.
Donna was offered a number of positions but gave the firm a list of things she did not want to do in a job. They included "no figure typing, no accounting, and must be something interesting.'' She is qualified as a typist.
Employment Tax Credit Act
Another case is Linda, desperate for work, either permanent or temporary. When offered a temporary job, she replied she had to take the TV in to be repaired.
Kim, hard up for money and looking for permanent or temporary work, after accepting and being booked for an assignment, telephoned to say her grandparents were coming for a visit and she had to stay home to let them in. The following day another temporary assignment was offered her, but she could not go because she was going out to dinner and would not have time to get ready.
Let me give you one more example, Mr. Speaker. This is the case of Anne, who would not take a one-day assignment because it would interfere with her unemployment insurance payments. The president of the firm wrote that at least she was honest about it.
It says here that the list is absolutely endless, that cases such as these happen three or four times a day. It goes on to say that they are constantly asked for separation slips from people who have refused to take jobs which they had offered. It takes them half an hour to fill these forms out. They are constantly battling with people, trying to persuade them to go on interviews for permanent and temporary jobs, and they are just not interested. Yet they collect unemployment insurance benefits. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister might take a long, hard look at this system to see if in fact it is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
I should like to speak briefly now about the auto industry and jobs in that industry. It is of great concern to everyone. We hear about Windsor all the time. I must give credit to my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who mentioned Brampton the other night. Brampton is a great auto town as well. We have American Motors there. American Motors are also experiencing a down turn in the economy and have been laying people off. I was pleased to see in their announcement this week that they are completely retooling and will be starting to make their Eagle car in Brampton, together with portions of the Concord. This will be very important to the economy of the community in which I reside and which I represent because they are now producing a jeep that is a recreational vehicle, and of course the down turn in recreational vehicles has hurt employment. I am very pleased to see this new production.
One thing that is interesting is that I have been trying to meet with the president of the United Auto Workers. There have been numerous telephone calls-and as a matter of fact one appointment set up but cancelled-to see how we could help them with the problems they are experiencing at the present time. For some reason they are not interested in sitting down and discussing those in an intelligent way. My offer is still there to help them. I hope they get in touch with us because they will have their problems in the next four or five months, being laid off while the retooling is going on.
The auto industry is suffering greatly now. Rather than bringing in Bill C-19 or extending this program, I think that it
390

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
would be far more beneficial to consider the motion under Standing Order 43 introduced by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) today in which he urged the government-and which the government refused-to consider a rescinding of the 9 per cent sales tax on North American built cars. I think this would have a dramatic effect on the auto industry. I know that it would help very greatly many, many communities, not just in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec but in other parts of Canada as well. I can only echo his comments and urge that the government give serious consideration to this.
Again I say to the minister, who is in the House this evening, that we are very disappointed that this is his first great pronouncement on employment programs out of his ministry. It is a rehash of something that was brought in during the Thirtieth Parliament. It does not really introduce us to the 1980s. There is nothing sparkling, bright, new and vibrant. There is nothing that people can sink their teeth into and say, "Hey, we have a new government and they are really interested in doing something". They told us that he is the bright light in the party. I read in the Canadian magazine on the weekend that he is the great white hope riding out of the west who will lead Canada. Yet, his first bill is just an extension of something that has been here for years. In his introduction this afternoon he did not say anything to indicate whether the bill was working. He thinks it is helping young people and he assumes that it is doing something, but it really is not. Until he produces those facts we are yet to be convinced that this bill should be continued. I will be interested in his remarks when we wind up second reading of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of addressing myself to the problems that lie before us in the measure which we are facing tonight. When I look at the bill before us, it seems to me that the Liberal government has established a new record for a new government, that is, tired already after two months.
First of all I should like to point out that I was impressed with the news release the minister sent out in conjunction with the legislation before us. I noticed that the release, dated April 15, indicated that we must have this legislation because the previous legislation was so successful that it created 50,000 new jobs. I think that is wonderful, except it looks like it is
50.000	man-years. The minister does not go on to explain that.
If one reads the legislation, the parameters for this program
are that the employer has to maintain the employee for at least 13 weeks. If this is 50,000 new jobs, then let us take the other side of the extreme. With 50,000 new jobs at 13 weeks per job, we are not looking at 50,000 man-years. We are looking at about 12,000 or 15,000 man-years. In terms of its success, it has not done the job that the press release tried to make us believe. I am sure that it might be a little more than the
12.000	or 15,000 because some of those jobs may have turned out to be permanent ones. But it is highly unlikely, because any employer who is looking at a clean-up operation in his company will see this as a perfect way of doing some clean-up
work around the place. He will hire this person for just the 13 weeks, and, what do you know, the job runs out for him the day after the program ends! It is not fair to the Canadian public for the minister to put out a press release which misleads the public in that way.
Someone has already pointed out with respect to this legislation that one of the weaknesses in it is the fact that it really does not deal with those companies which need the help the most and could help the most, that is, help the unemployed the most. As one person has already said today, probably half of the companies in Canada will not be able to benefit from this employment tax credit program because, in order to benefit, it is necessary for them to have paid income tax. What if it is a small operation, a new operation, a struggling operation which has never had to pay income tax? How will it benefit from this program?
Is the minister prepared to introduce an amendment so that there will be a pay-out to these companies at the end of the year if they have not had to pay tax? As it stands now, they must have an income tax payable of around $27,000 or $30,000 in order to benefit from this legislation. I would be happy to know if the minister is willing to introduce an amendment so that young companies, struggling companies that have not had to pay income tax, or those companies which just started out this year and have no tax record at all will benefit from this program. In the pure sense of the word, they are providing new employment. Will the minister provide some kind of a way to allow these companies to benefit from this kind of a program? I am referring to the companies that will not benefit as the legislation is before us at the present time.
The other matter which disturbs me greatly about the drafting of this bill is that the text indicates that the parameters of the legislation are around a time limit rather than a money limit. The bill indicates that the legislation will expire at the end of 1982, but there is nothing in the legislation which fixes any firm money amount to it. Would the minister tell us just exactly how much this program will cost Canadian taxpayers? Does he have any kind of figure in mind what it will cost Canadian taxpayers? How many employers does the minister estimate will benefit from this program? In the course of the minister's remarks, when he summarizes second reading debate, will he give us some kind of estimate of what it will cost Canadians to get into this program, rather than simply a time limit? Surely we are entitled to know just exactly what we are being asked to pay for in this program.
Another point I should like to bring out is that this bill really is supposed to be addressing unemployment, so we must ask ourselves why there is unemployment. Surely, sooner or later, we have to look at the record of this government under the leadership of this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I just had some information handed to me today regarding commercial failures from 1968 to 1978 under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. In 1968, when the present Prime Minister took office, there were 261 manufacturing business
April 24, 1980

failures, involving losses to the tune of $287 million. By 1974 the number had dropped, oddly enough, because we were enjoying a short-term boom. In that year there were 244 manufacturing business failures. However, by 1979 under the leadership of this Prime Minister manufacturing business failures increased to 534. That is double what it was when this Prime Minister took office.
It seems a little ironic to me that this minister is introducing legislation presumably to help small businessmen when those people he is trying to help are already going out of business to the extent of almost two per day. He is drafting legislation which, as I understand it, within its parameters in no way helps those faltering businesses that will go bankrupt without help. It seems to me we have to take a hard look at the economic record of this government. Surely when 534 businesses in 1979 failed and went bankrupt, the minister would agree that this is one of the contributing factors to the high unemployment we have today with 1.2 million people out of work. With 534 businesses failing in one year, surely that is one reason for increased unemployment.
A second factor that I believe has contributed to our high unemployment is the indebtedness of our country. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) introduced a mini-budget the other day in which he announced that the indebtedness of this country will be higher than was estimated last fall, to the extent of something like $14 billion this year. That money has to come from somewhere. If it comes from general revenue, general revenue will have to increase, and in order for it to increase the taxpayer will have to pay more. The taxpayer in question happens to include the small businessman.
When it comes to individual budget deficits as a percentage of the GNP, we are really hanging in there with the best of them. The United States has a budget deficit as a percentage of GNP of 0.1 per cent. France has a budget deficit of 1.9 per cent in terms of GNP, whereas Canada has a budget deficit in those terms of 3.8 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Benno Friesen: With this kind of increase in deficit, the necessary extra tax must come from the business community that this minister is attempting to help. That surely is some kind of help. It seems to me we had a clear indication the other day that this government really does not -believe in the private sector. The mini-budget brought in the other day belies any kind of logical belief that this Liberal government believes in the private sector.
Let us consider what the minister did with regard to the capital gains tax. I remember very well that the Carter Commission of some years ago brought in a policy of "a buck is a buck is a buck.". Let me say to my friends to the left that he meant that not only actually but figuratively, or maybe the other way around, because they really believe in that philosophy. The commissioners were from that great haven of socialism at that time, the province of Manitoba. Everything was a buck.
Employment Tax Credit Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: We know they are awake, Mr. Speaker. They believe the government is the best agency to invest or carry out capital investment. It is strange that as soon as the government did away, as a result of the recommendations of the Carter commission, with the capital gains tax, there was pressure on the housing market. As soon as there was that pressure on the housing market, construction companies stopped building, developers stopped developing, and there was an immediate need for apartment houses and single-family dwellings. As soon as the government brought in that tax revision it created a problem in the housing industry. That naturally gave the socialists pleasure because then they could bring in more legislation and regulation. They brought in landlord-tenant regulations, rental controls, and all of that type of legislation they enjoyed. As soon as there was no point in an investor making capital investments, the government had to step in.
This minister who brought in this legislation was active on the housing task force that travelled across Canada. Surely he should have known what would result. I assume he agrees with that kind of legislation.
On Monday night we had another clear example that this government is not committed to private-sector investments in such things as the housing industry. This is one reason why we in Vancouver have a real negative vacancy rate in apartment housing, and this is why we have a spiralling cost in housing in Vancouver.
I would challenge this minister, who was a member of that task force of 1968, to put pressure on the finance minister to make sure that the capital gains tax legislation is reversed for the housing industry so there will be an incentive for development money to go into housing in order to provide jobs and housing for the Canadian people, particularly in the Vancouver area where this is so necessary.
The third reason I see for rising unemployment in Canada is that we import employees to Canada to do work that Canadians could do. Just last week I attended an interparliamentary union conference and, on my way home, I stopped in London to have a look at our immigration office there. As I stood in the foyer of the immigration office in London I looked at the jobs posted on the board. I know this minister would rather carry on a conversation with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) than hear about what is going on at our immigration office in London, but that job board was full of jobs offered to people in England who would come to Canada. There were positions for pipefitters in Fort McMurray, and machinists in Edmonton, Regina, Moose Jaw and Sarnia. We do not have any pipefitters who need jobs in Canada, I guess. There were all kinds of jobs offered to tradespeople in England to do work here that could be done by Canadians.
Does the minister have any intention of adopting a policy whereby unemployed machinists in Windsor will be offered jobs in Edmonton, with some kind of pressure on them to move from Windsor to Edmonton so that these jobs can be taken by Canadians rather than by people brought in from England?

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Does he have any such intention? Surely within the manpower program we have an incentive program which pays for that kind of move. What kind of pressure will the minister put on Canadians to fill these jobs which can be done by Canadians, rather than having people come from Europe and other countries to fill them? These jobs are waiting to be filled, and they could be filled by Canadians.
As the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) has already said, we have a seemingly systematic policy in our unemployment system that, on the slightest excuse, people do not have to accept the job that is being offered to them. There seems to be a policy within the Liberal government that, if there is the slightest excuse, it will import employees from overseas rather than put pressure on Canadians to do that kind of work, whatever it may be. These are good, high paying jobs which are being performed by people who have been brought in by the minister and the policies that he has adopted.
It is patently obvious to most Canadians that we have too few skilled craftsmen in Canada who have been trained in Canada. Approximately 25 per cent of the tradesmen in Canada have been trained in Canada. The remainder were all trained outside the country. The remaining 75 per cent are either Canadians trained outside the country or people who have acquired their skills in another country and immigrated to Canada.
It is time that we have the kind of training program, such as we had in our policy, that will provide for skilled craftsmen to be trained in Canada, an apprentice system working in unison with the unions and management. This would help establish the kind of training program that would enable young people to learn to do the jobs which are now being given to people who have been brought in to Canada to do the work.
Another reason that we have unemployment is because we export jobs which could be done by Canadian companies, to foreign companies. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) gave a good example of this very thing when he told the House of the fishing boats which are being built overseas, and the fishing contracts, which could be performed by people in the maritimes, that are going overseas.
Another example which I would like to put on the record comes from my own constituency. The firm involved is a dredging company. In a letter to me, a company official said:
We agree with subsidies or grants being allocated to various projects but are alarmed when we see our tax dollars being spent on exploration in areas where there is no Canadian content or benefit.
The following are some examples of our concerns:
1.	Esso Resources Limited, island construction in the Arctic. In 1971 firm proposals were submitted to their specifications and requirements. A large American-owned company bought their way in at the start, then continued to negotiate contracts for eight years. Large amounts of these profits are directed back to the United States.
The Jones Act prevents Canadian companies from doing the same in American waters.
But we allow it to happen in Canada. The letter goes on:
2.	Esso Resources Limited required additional equipment, and chose to use Beaver Dredging of Toronto. This company operates a token office in Canada but are in reality Dutch owned. Again, equipment and main crew were imported. We would estimate that through their operations, a large percentage of $30 to $50 million of Canadian money spent over the past five years, has been taken out of the country. Some Canadian labour was used.
3.	Dome Petroleum has been contemplating deepening a channel into Tuktoyaktuk harbour since 1975. Canadian companies made approaches to carry out this work but were largely ignored. In 1979 Dome hired a large Dutch dredge, at great expense, without requesting firm proposals from Canadian companies.
Some of the men I work with had an opportunity to board this dredge and observed that the very few Canadian workers employed, were doing mediocre jobs.
We are certain that the high revenue gained by this Dutch company will leave the country.
This project is probably the most costly operation and the largest loss of Canadian funds to foreign owners and crews.
4.	Export Development Corporation (E.D.C.) called tenders for dredging in Cotonou, Republic of Benin, with a financial grant (direct gift) from CIDA. This job was open to foreign competition as an alternate. In order to keep Canadian companies out, a large European company bought the project.
5.	EDC built a hopper dredge for the Cameroon port of Douala, a gift of $12.5 million. CIDA called for tenders in Canada to operate and train nationals for this project. Beaver dredging obtained the contract, but used no Canadians on the project.
The minister wonders why we have growing unemployment in our country. Those are the reasons why we have unemployment in Canada.
I believe we also have unemployment because we do not target our programs to areas and groups where the needs are the greatest. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), who spoke earlier, pointed out that the minister is using the "shotgun" approach rather than a "rifle" approach. That is a good analogy. Why does the government not target the unemployment program, the tax program, to those groups where unemployment is the greatest? Approximately 15 per cent of our youth are unemployed. The program could be targeted for geographical areas of greatest distress, the maritimes for example. It could also be targeted for women. I see the hon. member for Ottawa Centre indicating that there is something in it.


Mr. Evans:: What did you do with Young Canada Works?


Benno Friesen: If the hon. member would check Hansard of December 13, 1979, he will see.


John Leslie Evans: It was cancelled.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member should not stand so close because he might get caught in the draft.
The bill which is before this House tonight does not hit the target groups or areas where the needs are the greatest and, because there is no fixed dollar amount attached to the programs, the Canadian public will be left out in the cold. This bill will not do the job for which it is intended.
On the one hand we have before us a very innocuous piece of legislation although, conceptually, it has some good points within in. It looks innocuous and it even looks helpful, but I
April 24, 1980

suggest that because of the way the program is designed, the work which will go into it and particularly the money which will go into it will be dissipated in such a way that Canadians will not benefit from it the way they should.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate this soon. Elowever, following the remarks made by my hon. friend, I believe some points must be clarified.
First, I will take the liberty of reading from a speech delivered by a friend of the hon. member from the opposition last December 13, a date which all members in the opposition can certainly recall. Speaking about the record on tax credits:
The basic intent of the legislation is to stimulate employment by allowing employers to claim the $80 weekly tax credit in return for providing jobs under certain conditions. In the event that an employer would not be able to use the tax credits in a given year, it would be possible to carry them forward for up to five years.

The first question concerns the member's comment with regard to the companies that could not participate in the program because they are not paying taxes, in other words, small companies which do not have profits. First of all, most of the firms that do apply for the tax credit program are small firms. If a firm cannot use the tax credit in the first year because of zero taxation, then it can carry the tax credit forward for five years.
Many would argue that we should not subsidize an unprofitable firm, but a firm which cannot make a profit after five years should not be given the benefit of the tax credit. That is the first point. 1 will continue with Mr. Atkey's speech of last December.

The two elements of the program will be concerned with, first, the incremental employment of youth, and second, with improving or maintaining the employability of people with hiring handicaps, particularly youth, natives, older workers, women re-entrants into the labour force and the disabled. These elements are to come into effect in early February, 1980. If the private sector responds as I anticipate, we will be able to place in private sector jobs before the next fiscal year draws to a close up to 105,000 unemployed young people.
To come back to the second point the former speaker brought up, when he speaks of the program which, according to him, did not create the number of jobs the minister claimed in his news release-

The program does not really create 50,000 person-years, and most firms fire people after 13 weeks-that is the statement the hon. member made previously. The estimate is about
45,000	person-years for the year 1979-80-and the average length of a contract is 46 weeks, not the 13 week minimum that the hon. member mentioned. The data is not all complete but it had been evaluated that about 50 per cent of the jobs
Employment Tax Credit Act
created continue after the subsidy has ceased, once again contrary to what the hon. member mentioned.
Mr. Atkey continued:

Of this total, 89,000 young people will be placed in new private sector jobs that did not exist before;...

The then minister was telling us that he was creating 89,000 jobs that did not exist in that time. I cannot understand the hon. member's logic, having supported that bill on December 13 and then today saying that it is not a very good bill and not the type that a Conservative government would support. Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the same bill that we are supporting. It is not what we want-we will have our own job-creation program to present-


Benno Friesen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: You know how I hate to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I think there is a significant difference between the legislation that Mr. Atkey introduced and that which is before us. There was a fixed dollar figure attached to that one and there is not to this.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, I can see that we are attacking a certain point to which the hon. member was quick to react. It is exactly the same type of bill, and I repeat it is not the type of bill that we would want but right now there is a sense of urgency. When the party opposite was in government they stopped the Canada Works program and a whole bunch of programs that were job-creating. They cut off staff.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since the members opposite have caused today's unemployment rate, we must now take urgent action to correct the mistakes made by their government which, fortunately, stayed in power only for a few months. Within the next few weeks, we plan on putting into effect a comprehensive employment creation program which will include several elements. We have decided to do so because we believe in small businesses and we consider it our duty to help them in the months to come before introducing a comprehensive job-creation program. However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that 1 should continue to read from the speech made by the then minister because this might instil some guilt in the minds of the Progressive Conservatives, at least I hope so, because I cannot believe that they really change their mind every six months.


An hon. Member:: They have a short memory.

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act


Dennis Dawson: You are right, they have a short memory.
Whether we reach the placement ceilings under either the incremental element or the employability element will depend a great deal on the response we get from the leaders of business and industry.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that after six months the reaction from the leaders of business and industry has been remarkable and that this government is now re-establishing this program because the funds provided have been used by the companies and because the private sector had confidence in this program. The government will continue to support this program as it had announced in 1978 in the budget speech of Mr. Chretien.
We will be appealing to them to join with us in an all-out effort to create employment opportunities for Canadians, and especially young Canadians.
In addition to forging a partnership with the private business and industrial sectors, we want to co-operate with the voluntary sector in creating jobs directly for youth.
Although the voluntary sector has demonstrated a tremendous capacity to perform an invaluable service function, as witness their efforts in the case of the Indo-Chinese refugees, such organizations have been largely untapped as a potential source of concrete work experience for young men and women.
That is another objective we also share. As suggested this afternoon, the government was not defeated on those matters because we supported the former government on these job creation programs, but for other reasons you are fully aware of, Mr. Speaker.
Now that this bill is before the Elouse, we are counting on the co-operation of the official opposition who supported that bill six months ago in order that once more this evening this bill hopefully will pass as soon as possible, in order that small businesses so heartily supported by our friends opposite may get these grants, and that our young people have an opportunity to work. We hope there will be no systematic opposition from Conservative members on that program.

More than 25,000 employers have signed agreements under the employment tax credit program, and 92 per cent of them have indicated in an interim survey that they would participate again.
With the greatest number of employers, Quebec and Ontario have the most impressive total of employees hired under the program-18,500 in Quebec; over 19,000 in Ontario in the last fiscal year.
The acceptance of the program by small businesses is reflected in the fact that 77 per cent of all agreements were signed with businesses employing 20 or fewer, and 40 per cent of these employers had a maximum of five in their normal work force. That is what we call helping small business enterprise, Mr. Speaker.
Use of the programs was high in all Atlantic provinces. On average 88 per cent of Atlantic region takeup was from firms with fewer than 20 employees. In the prairie region small firms represent 85 per cent of participants; in British Columbia, 82 per cent; Ontario, 77 per cent, and Quebec 72 per cent.
That is what we are doing to help the small businessman whom the hon. member was talking about when he spoke-the ones who are having all the problems with the high interest rates. 1 should like to have more information from my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Henry Perrin Beatty: This is just a Liberal filibuster.


Dennis Dawson: Oh, come on. We are trying to educate you hon. members on the other side.


Douglas Charles Neil: You haven't a hope!


Dennis Dawson: You are right. I have to admit. We have been having a lot of difficulty in the last few years trying to educate hon. members opposite, but we are still working at it. We are still hoping.


Mr. McKenzie:: You have had 16 years to work on it.


Dennis Dawson: Yes, and we will be here for a few years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should address the Chair.


Dennis Dawson: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 1 was answering the remarks made by our hon. friends opposite.

Distribution of jobs placed 51 per cent in manufacturing, 20 per cent in retailing and wholesaling, 12 per cent in service industries. Forty-three per cent of employees worked in machinery and fabricating occupations, 15 per cent in clerical, and 7 per cent in sales.
Employers in the Atlantic regions and the Gaspe region of Quebec can earn a maximum of $4,160 in tax credits for each employee hired under the program; in most other urban areas in other regions, the maximum tax credit earned for each employee is $3,120, while in the remainder of the country the maximum is $3,640.
The program involves very little paperwork. There are only two one-page forms to be filled in by the employer, with a third that is optional.
Young Canadians 25 years of age and under made up 55 per cent of those employed, equally split between male and female. Over all, a full 34 per cent of those employed were females. That is another responsibility the hon. minister has and will be dealing with in the next few weeks, Mr. Speaker.
Coming back to the paperwork, we have heard so often from hon. members opposite that we are burdening small enterprise with paper work. This is a tax credit program and it is very easy for the companies to apply for it. We have not received any complaints from private enterprise or stnall companies concerning this program because it is very easy for them to apply, and very easy for them to profit from it. Some hon. members have already spoken on this aspect, Mr. Speaker.
April 24, 1980

A sample based on 5,000 employed under the program reveals that 52 per cent were living on unemployment insurance benefits prior to finding employment through the program; another 5 per cent were living on welfare, and others were being supported by family members, living on savings or pensions. I think that is a good performance, Mr. Speaker. All had been unemployed for a minimum of two weeks, but the average length of time they had been unemployed and looking for work was 15 weeks. And I think that has been progressive, Mr. Speaker.
Employment and unemployment patterns vary widely across this country, and the employment tax credit program, although it has been successful, cannot meet all the varying employment needs in this diverse country.
The extension of the Employment Tax Credit Act is an interim measure, which will shortly be followed by a range of new employment programs.
The kind of targeting which respects the diversity of this country and is sensitive to the differing needs and opportunities across this country, is a fundamental part of the employment development measures that this government is developing and which will be presented to this House in the near future.
Having this information now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. members will stop filibustering the bill and that we may have maximum co-operation from them so that the small enterprise about which they are always crying will get back to this program and be satisfied with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about the bill before us, C-19. I was chatting with my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) just before I got up to speak. He brought to my attention a quote from John Foster Dulles that I thought might well be appropriate for the context of this debate. It goes as follows: "The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it's the same problem you had last year". I have to think that if you are going to measure success by that criterion, then this government certainly is successful. If anything, it is very successful given that the problem it is now dealing with is even worse than the problem it had when the legislation was first introduced by its predecessor.
Let me talk for a moment in a little different vein from my colleagues who tended to want to speak about the statistical problems and the values of this piece of legislation statistically. I want to talk about what unemployment really is. It is not a statistic that should be manipulated by politicians for their own particular needs. It is not 7, 8 or 9 per cent of anything. For the majority of people who face it, it is the single most frightening, single most soul-destroying experience.
The very result of unemployment breaks up families, and contributes to excessive alcohol and drug use. It is a symptom that is reflected frequently in child abuse and spouse abuse.
Employment Tax Credit Act
Unemployment is a major contributor to crime. If you were to stop and think about it for a moment, you would agree that unemployment is the single major problem with which we have to cope. If we could deal with the background to unemployment, we would to a great extent have dealt with the social and economic problems that confront the nation at the moment.
We are in a country that is facing a terrible crisis. We are faced with a piece of legislation which, under any other circumstances, would be unsupportable.


John Allen Fraser: What circumstances would those be?


Ian Deans: In any other circumstances this kind of legislation would be totally unsupportable. I will come to that in a moment. When you look around you and you look at the crisis and the problems that confront us, and you look at this piece of legislation intended to deal even in part with the problems of unemployment, the tendency is to smile and walk away from it.
Here we are with a resource sector under siege from offshore, having great difficulty coping with the challenges of today, given the facts of the companies that operate here and abuse and take our resources, and have done so for many years. They are now using the money that they got from the sale of those resources to develop competitive resources in other parts of the world. This country has its energy prices dictated to it by OPEC nations. It has its interest rate policies set in Washington and New York. This country has a manufacturing sector that is being undermined by foreign ownership. The elderly of this country are in despair, and the young are beset with panic.
I have three children and they say to me, "Hey, Dad, what do you think I should be? What should I study? What are the opportunities? What sorts of advice can you give me with regard to where my future might lie in terms of finding a job?" I ask hon. members to think about that for a moment. What kind of advice do you give young people today when they ask you what they should study, where are the areas of greatest opportunity, and what chance is there for them? I certainly find it difficult to give them the kind of advice that I got from my father and I am sure he got from his.


An hon. Member:: Go to Canada?


Ian Deans: I thank you very much-a very interesting interjection and typical of the Conservative party. Those who have jobs are afraid to spend because their jobs are in jeopardy. They are not at all sure of the future. Those who have no jobs cannot spend. The country's economy is on the decline and we get a piece of legislation which in essence, when looked at most carefully, enshrines the working poor as an institution in Canada.
You have to look at what is happening in this country. Perhaps the government would have been better to come forward now with an over-all program that speaks about what is really going to happen and shows that we are solving the problems we are facing. I am sure you are aware of this, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Speaker, having been involved for many years, but it is so simple and elementary that one is almost afraid to say it, and yet it is true. As consumer purchasing declines, manufacturing slows down. As manufacturing slows down, people get laid off. As people get laid off, consumer purchasing declines. As mortgage interest rates rise, people have less money to spend to purchase durable and non-durable goods. The cycle begins all over again. Consumer purchasing declines. Manufacturing slows down. More and more people get laid off.
It feeds on itself. It has a snowballing effect. It cannot be resolved with this employment tax credit. It cannot even begin to be resolved with this unemployment tax credit, because unemployment feeds on unemployment and, as more become unemployed, more become unemployed.
This program is aimed primarily at small businesses. However, if you look honestly at small business, the declining economy does not allow for small business to expand. As people cannot purchase, the small businessman does not need to hire anyone else. Therefore a program like this does not even being to address the major problem that confronts people looking for work. Small business relies to a great extent on a buoyant economy. Unless we create a buoyant economy we will not be able to solve the problems of unemployment or the problems that flow from unemployment.
Take a look at small business. I listened to members who have spoken and who made reference to small businesses and the difficulties that confront them. As they stand in their store or factory awaiting the orders to come in for the sale of the product that they either wholesale, retail, or manufacture, they build up inventories. Those inventories are dollars. They go to the bank.
I was in the bank yesterday. A friend of mine who owns a small business said to me, "When are they going to do something in Ottawa? Do they not understand that I cannot afford to carry this inventory any longer, that the cost of carrying the inventory is a cost that I cannot recover? I cannot recover it because I am in competition with big business and they are able to sell finance to a greater extent. 1 must therefore go into the bank and borrow. I must add the 20 per cent on to the cost of my inventory when I put it on sale in the store. The consumers, those who are still working and still have some money to spend, look at my price and they look at the price of the larger enterprise, the chain store operation or others, and they see they can get the same product at a much cheaper price elsewhere."
This does not help my friend in business. It does not help him a bit. He cannot hire anyone anyway because he does not have the volume, yet he still has to carry the inventory. He still has to borrow. If one were to look at how you begin the process of resolving the problems of Canada, you surely do not begin by bringing in this, but by bringing in some action that will stabilize interest rates.
I was particularly intrigued by the comments of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)
because they are, at least in one instance, right on. These are not 50,000 jobs for a year each. These jobs might last for a few weeks. That's it. Then they are back on the breadline again, or in the unemployment insurance commission office, or looking out of their windows wondering just where they are going next.
How many hon. members have been unemployed? How many know what it is to look at your kids and realize that you don't have an income, to realize that you cannot provide the things the other families on the street are providing for their kids? How many know what it is like to sit down with your family when Christmas comes and you can't do anything because you have not been able to find a job, or what it is like to realize that your mortgage is due very soon and not only are the interest rates rising, not only will you be faced with exorbitant increases over what you were paying previously, but to know full well that you will not be able to find a job and, by not being able to find a job, no matter what happens you are going to lose your home, the home you both worked for years to save the down payment for, the home you have put most of your dreams into, and maybe thought you would raise your family in?
Go talk to the people outside and ask them. This measure does nothing even to begin to address that devastating problem. We talk about unemployment as if, somehow or other, here in the House of Commons it really doesn't affect people. I shall not go into details about unemployment in other parts of the country because I intend to do that another time, but in the province of Ontario alone unemployment has now become the order of the day. There are very few, if any, communities where industries are not laying off workers. There are very few families which are not touched by it in one way or another. Yet we get a bill, Bill C-19, which will find two or three temporary jobs at minimum wage. We get a bill which does not begin to address itself to the major problem. That is the response of the government.
Do hon. members realize, for example, that in Talbotville on January 19, 3,100 people were laid off in the auto industry? In Oakville on the same date 3,400 people were laid off in the auto industry. In St. Catharines 2,400 were laid off by General Motors on January 22. In Brampton, during February, Gabriel laid off 20 people engaged in parts manufacturing.
In Hamilton, Firestone laid off 75 workers on February 8, and another lay-off is starting tomorrow. In Stratford the Sealed Power Corporation laid off 180 people engaged in parts production. A colleague in the Conservative party spoke of the situation in Brampton earlier tonight and expressed concern. Well, in Brampton 470 people were laid off on February 16. In Oshawa in the GM plant on March 1, 2,000 people were laid off. In Ajax, 18 people were laid off on March 6 and another 92 in April. This was at Chrysler. Leigh Instruments, another auto-related industry in Waterloo, laid off 130 people.
In Whitby, the Firestone Tire Company closes with 650 people laid off and we are still debating whether we should go ahead with the Michelin project! In St. Catharines, General Motors, 3,100 laid off; also in St. Catharines, 70 people laid off on March 29 by Hayes-Dana, the chassis manufacturing
April 24, 1980

firm. In Oakville on April 16, 1,400 people were laid off; in Windsor on the same date, 800 Ford employees laid off. In Scarborough on April 17-General Motors-131 more people laid off. In Ottawa-I mentioned this the other night-240 people were laid off by Beach Foundry, an auto parts manufacturer. Another 28 people were laid off by Kelsey-Hayes in St. Catharines and another 100 at Otter Lake, as I mentioned. At Stratford-Schwitzer-61 people laid off. And today, Massey Ferguson in Brantford announced that 85 were to be laid off with more lay-offs to come. Then, of course, we must consider the situation in Detroit, our neighbour, one which closely affects the Windsor area. General Motors announced today that 13,000 people are to be laid off.
That is unemployment, Mr. Speaker. And the effects of that unemployment are devastation for the workers and their families. The effects of such unemployment cannot be met by this ridiculous piece of inadequate legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: We would like to be charitable and say we understand it is only intended as a stop-gap measure. The problem is, I cannot for the life of me see where the permanent measures are coming from. When can I expect to hear from the government a statement about its policy with regard to employment? When can I expect to hear from the government its policies with regard to the restructuring of the manufacturing sector? When can we expect to hear from the government what its policies are with regard to the auto insurance industry and related industries?
If 1 thought for a moment the bill was intended to Fill a very narrow gap, I would say: very well, let us pass it, let us get on to the real meat of the thing. But you know, and I know, Mr. Speaker-I can tell from the way you are looking at me-we both know there is no legislation forthcoming; I can see it in your eyes. It is just awful. Here we are, standing in the House of Commons; you would think it was a new thing, that we had never heard of it before, that it has just blossomed.
When I was in Hamilton yesterday and people were telling me about their problems-here we have Firestone laying people off and, no doubt, the steel industry will be affected by the auto cutbacks and colleagues and friends of mine laid off in Oakville Ford and all the related industries in the area looking very seriously at cutbacks-they said, "What are you going to do tomorrow when you get back?" I said, "I am going to say a word or two about the employment tax credit bill."
"Hey!" they said, "Is that going to be any good?" Really! What could I say? 1 was embarrassed. And no wonder. This government wins on the strength of promises that ministers are going to deal with the economy, that they are going to wrestle inflation to the ground again. They are really going to put their best foot forward-


Walter David Baker: If they can get it out of their mouth.
Employment Tax Credit Act


Ian Deans: After they get it out of their mouth. Yes, the difficulty here is plain to see. For some of us it is plain, ordinary frustration. We should not be dealing here with this bill tonight. We should be dealing with the meat of the problem. We should be talking about the difficulties which are confronting people across this nation. We should be looking at primary legislation to deal with these things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I want to suggest two or three small steps- maybe the government could consider them after they get this innocuous, ridiculous, outrageous piece of legislation through. Maybe they could take a look at reducing interest rates as recommended not only by us but by Walter Gordon, among others, who has said that if ever there was a time to move to the reduction of interest rates in the interest of the national economy, this was the time.
Not only should there be a lower interest rate policy, but we should also stabilize rates for a period in order that people could feel reasonably secure about their investments, reasonably secure about their futures, and reasonably secure about their ability to repay what they borrow. That would be the first policy 1 would like to see followed. I think then perhaps we could sit down and look at the auto industry, because it is upon the auto industry that much of Ontario turns, and we have to recognize that unless we take advantage of the situation which is now before us, and unless we are prepared to develop a parts manufacturing sector in Ontario and in the rest of Canada, then we will be forever at the mercy of the United States auto industry. That is plain to anyone.
I am sure there is not a member in this House who would not agree that there is not going to be a return to the good old days when everybody traded in his car every second year, and the auto industry flourished on the basis of that. People are going to keep their cars longer, buy new tires, and maybe even put in new motors. They are going to put in new parts, and unless we are manufacturing those tires, those motors and those parts, then we are going to be left out. Maybe the government could come into the House and spare just a couple of minutes more than the question period to chat about how we together could solve that very vexing and difficult problem.
Perhaps with our interest rate policy we could encourage the building industry to start again building homes for people of average means. The spin-off in the home building industry is phenomenal; 3.6 jobs are created in related industries to every job created building a house. Can hon. members imagine the number of jobs we could create in Canada in related industries if we could get on with the job of building homes for people at prices they could afford, and with mortgages they could afford to pay?
Maybe we could even take some strides to alter dramatically the resource exploitation policies of the past. Perhaps we could insist on further processing in Canada-a novel thought! That probably has never been considered. Maybe we could even

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
consider that since the resources are ours it would be helpful for two or three people if we were to take the resources and do something with them here, instead of sending them out of the country. Can hon. members imagine the spin-off? Can they imagine the benefit?
Then, of course, maybe we could consider our energy policy. Maybe we could take a look at energy as a resource, a catalyst or a tool for the development of this country. Maybe we could sit down and find a way to use it best to stabilize the economy, to build secondary manufacturing, and to develop the kinds of job opportunities which would make this kind of legislation, as I said before, unnecessary.
Then, of course, if someone brought in a piece of rubbish like this, we would know that it was really only intended to deal with such a small and isolated sector of society that we could make it worth while. We could fund it properly. We would not be putting people into low paying and menial jobs but, rather, into jobs that would satisfy them and give them a chance to earn a decent living. That is when this kind of legislation would be useful. It is useless today.
If the government would address itself to these kinds of things, then maybe the people of Canada would feel a little more secure and a little happier about the fact that we are all sitting here-we are not all sitting here, but those of us who are are sitting here. Maybe the minister would even take it upon himself to drop by and listen. He might enjoy it. If he did not enjoy it, he might learn. If he did not learn, he might at least appear to be interested. This might be a worth-while thing to consider.
In any event, the problems of this country are not going to be solved easily, and they are not going to be solved at all unless the process is begun here. This is where it has to start, and if it does not start here it will not start at all.
We put our faith in General Motors, thank you very much. We thought Chrysler, being the big, seventh largest corporation, was wonderful. We wondered how Ford could go wrong. Henry told us it was here to stay. Let us face it, the corporations have shown that they are not able to do this alone, and neither should they be expected to. This is the time for co-operative effort, and there are places in the world where co-operative effort is the order of the day and where industry and government work together.
There are places in the world where labour is consulted, where there is a sense of national purpose, where people really believe that their country means something, and where people are prepared to put out a little more because they know their contribution is both recognized and appreciated. We would not be dealing with this legislation if we could instil that kind of sense in this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the speech by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) there was an intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Dawson), the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. I want to commend him for his speech. I thought it was lucid, clear, and well thought out. It showed a great amount of insight, especially in view of the fact that it was the speech of the former minister of employment and immigration. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he continue on that path, and I look forward to more speeches if they are of that same quality.


Dennis Dawson: I wouldn't want to follow his career.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If the hon. member's speeches continue to be of that same quality, I would appreciate them.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned in his remarks that this House and the people of Canada would receive a comprehensive employment strategy which, I take it, will be a strategy with which this government will come forward in a very clear and precise way, and that we will be told how the government will address the question of Canada's unemployment.
I take it we will be told specifically how the government will address the problem of chronic unemployment among specific groups such as women, natives, and the handicapped, and I ask that the minister pay careful attention to the commitments his parliamentary secretary has made. I suggest to the minister that a comprehensive report and comprehensive legislation be brought forward within the next month. We will be pressing him for that strategy, in view of the fact that that commitment has been made tonight.
1 found it rather interesting that the parliamentary secretary should use the argument that we have been filibustering this bill.


Benno Friesen: First day.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yesterday was the first day we had legislation in the Thirty-second Parliament, and it was a bill from this minister. That bill received passage through all stages in one day. Hon. members will realize that yesterday was a Wednesday. It was a short day, so-called, and the bill was passed. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary thinks that, because the clock was not seen yesterday at the regular closing hour of six o'clock and the House sat until approximately 6.30, we were filibustering after six o'clock. However, I want to tell the parliamentary secretary that he should re-examine the whole definition he has been using for filibuster. This bill, Bill C-19, was presented to the House for second reading today at approximately three o'clock, and before the evening is out we already have the parliamentary secretary rising and accusing us of filibustering. I have always thought him to be a reasonable person.


Mr. Kempling:: No!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: gest that if he wants to reduce the amount of time that will be devoted to the subject of employment in Canada, let him become very serious in terms of addressing the question and coming forward with possible solutions. Perhaps he made the charge of a filibuster lightly, but whatever is the case, 1 would suggest that this does not necessarily enhance the work of the House. Also, he pleaded for co-operation, and I believe the House works better when there is a sense of co-operation. But how short his memory is!
If you take a look at the Thirty-first Parliament-and I do not want to go through that matter again-I think the hon. member-and I still believe he is a fair person-would realize that in no way can he have a strong case to make for co-operation if he expects it to come only from this side of the House. Co-operation is a two-way street. I suggest to him and to his minister, and through them to the House leader, that co-operation will be forthcoming, but obviously it will not come from one side only. So I say to him that if he wants the legislation passed, he should use arguments that are cogent rather than the ones he used tonight.
In the throne speech an attempt was made to address the question of employment in Canada, and I shall quote two sections from the throne speech:
To meet the needs of these groups-
That is young people, women, natives and the handicapped.
-my government will expand its employment program while using its resources more efficiently. There will be an increased effort to develop critical trade skills so as to better prepare today's labour force for tomorrow's jobs.
The second one reads:
Members of Parliament will have a major role in advising on the selection of job-creation projects, and my government will enter into a new partnership with voluntary agencies and local organizations in a program of community service.
Those are noble words, and I am sure they are endorsed by members on all sides of this House.
I ask the minister tonight are we to take those words seriously, and what programs does he have in mind on which members from both sides of the House will be taken into the confidence of the minister and of the government and on which their advice will in fact be followed? I ask the minister would he give us a clear indication, prior to his closing the debate on this bill whatever that time may be, as to what is meant by those words, what are the specifics, what programs, in very concrete terms, he has in mind, and how will they work so that members on both sides of the House will have an opportunity to advise and to give suggestions which will not only be considered but some of which will be adopted?
In this debate we have already heard of the economy and the structural problems that exist. Obviously the fact that we are facing, with this government and with its leadership, no growth for the next year, does not all augur well for employment opportunities over the next 12 months. I think members of the House are fully aware of my belief that basically long term, lasting employment should be created by the private sector. Before this can be achieved, a climate must exist whereby confidence to invest is developed. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members in the House that some of the
Employment Tax Credit Act
rhetoric we have heard from the NDP does not help to develop that confidence.
Today I listened to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) speak. He is a resident of the community of Thompson, a so-called one industry company town, and yet throughout almost his entire speech he criticized the role of the multinationals. Inco is the major employer in Thompson, and if Inco were to close down, so would Thompson. A number of other communities in his riding are also resource based communities with multinational corporations. What have these corporations done? They have gone into the communities-in many cases they have created the communities-and built the infrastructure. In many cases there has been a co-operative relationship between the company and the residents.
In my riding there is the company town of Pine Falls, and then there is Abitibi, and I keep hearing about the pulp and paper companies which have a good relationship with their employees and have contributed to the economy of the community. I ask the hon. member for Churchill how long he wants to stand in the House and say that Inco has been bad for Thompson? He gives no other solution. Many of us will recall that when the world nickel market became tight, and unemployment increased in cities such as Thompson and Sudbury, what did we hear from the NDP? That we were supposed to stockpile. I remember that the hon. member who said that came from Nickel Belt. I do not know where he stayed after February 18.


An hon. Member:: He is stockpiled in Nickel Belt.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: So the point must surely be made that in many of these resource-based communities multinational corporations have been good corporate citizens. The very jobs you, gentlemen, asked for, have been created by that type of investment.
Today we heard from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


An hon. Member:: The bionic man.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He listed many cases of lay-offs and, you will recall that in almost every case a multinational company was involved. My point is that these jobs have been created because of foreign investment, but the NDP want it both ways. They are saying that the company is not doing its corporate duty when it lays off as the economy shows no growth. I am not here to defend the government but 1 think this matter should be kept in balance. I do not see how the hon. member for Churchill could go home and talk to the people in the city council-by the way, those people work for the company-and say to them, "I think we should close Inco down and let us not worry about the effects on Thompson", because what is happening there is that the company has been well aware of the effects which a slowdown could have on the community. They are intrinsically bound together, and I do not see how the NDP could think that the company would want to be anti-employee, because, if they were, the company would have to go out and hire again and train people again. Obviously that would cost them money and show up on the balance sheet.

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
It is my view that the employment tax credit program has some merit. In smaller rural communities I think we have seen a higher incidence of people subscribing to the program than to a number of other programs. I think the statistics would also bear that out. It is true that jobs have been created where those jobs possibly would not have been filled or simply where other people have doubled up.
There is a fly in the concept which underlies this bill, and that is that unfortunately too often there have been cases where the persons who had been hired were no longer required when the contract ended. When the minister rises to address this question, I would ask him to give us a breakdown of whether they have done a survey on that. Generally speaking the cases are relatively low in number as against the number of jobs created, but they exist. I believe that officials of the department should examine how better we can avoid that situation, because we cannot afford having people employed, hopes built up and then, when the government program ends, the job also ends.
Also I suggest to the minister that there should be a better advertising program related to this program. Just this week I received two letters from my riding, one from Beausejour and one from Ridgeville, a very small community. In both cases persons came to know about the employment tax credit plan after they had made employment decisions. I would suggest that the minister should re-examine the advertising program in the weekly papers because I think in that case they would reach more rural people than they do through the dailies or for that matter the electronic media.
This minister has sat in opposition for a long time, since 1973 in Manitoba. Until he came to Ottawa he was known as a person who took on many causes, spoke on most anything, and it did not really bother him if he had not studied the subject. One of his chief projects, about which I admit he had done some studying, was urban studies. Up until this afternoon he was known in our province as a chief proponent of rail line relocation. The Manitoba Hansard is full of the comments of the minister regarding the absolute necessity of rail relocation of the CPR railyards and the rails in downtown Winnipeg. We have it documented. I am sure I do not have to remind the minister of the many occasions he rose to his feet to do so.
A year ago almost to the day today our member in the then cabinet, a resident of Ontario, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), became the member in cabinet for Manitoba. Trying to do his duty he actually came and visited us. One of the first things which he did was to go and see the minister, who at that time was an opposition MLA. It did not take very long after these two blood brothers got together for them to convince each other that rail relocation was the absolute way to go in Winnipeg. We saw the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River coming back here totally convinced that that would happen in downtown Winnipeg.


David Michael Collenette: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I hear the hon. member saying, "Order". I want to get to the employment this project would have meant for the downtown area of Winnipeg. If he will just hang on, I will let him know.


Walter David Baker: Just be patient.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The situation at the time was that the city of Winnipeg had committed itself to the building of another overpass. They needed a permit from the transport department to construct that overpass. The government of the province of Manitoba had committed itself to the building of the overpass, and suddenly everything stopped because these two gentlemen decided that they wanted a study on rail relocation. I guess we were looking at things too small again, we did not have enough vision; we had to have a larger vision. That was a year ago.
Since the minister's election to this House and his appointment to cabinet, he made further commitments. The commitments he made were that rail relocation would come to Winnipeg. It was a small figure, only something like $168 million, and $100 million would come from the federal treasury. We had no doubt about that because this minister gave us a commitment.


Walter David Baker: Wonderful fellow that he
was.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I understand they made a decision today on rail relocation.


An hon. Member:: No!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The minister is indicating that they have not made a decision.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I understand that His Worship the Mayor of Winnipeg, members of his council, as well as representatives of the government of the province of Manitoba, met with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I have been watching the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and it seems to me that he is speaking on every single matter except the bill before the House. I would ask Mr. Speaker to direct his attention to the fact that he should be speaking on Bill C-19 and not on Manitoba matters in general.


An hon. Member:: Are you the Speaker?


Walter David Baker: He was just coming to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been listening to a number of remarks from various quarters this evening. I believe the hon. member speaking is generally addressing himself to the subject matter of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Go out to the back where you came from.
April 24, 1980


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 want to tell my good friend from Toronto that I will get very specific about the employment opportunities in this matter, if he can just be patient.
Today His Worship the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg and the officials of the province of Manitoba met with the Minister of Transport. He told them: "No money, no rail relocation". I understand that the Minister of Employment and Immigration came into the meeting late, was all hot and bothered and said, "Look, just a minute, we can make another decision. Maybe you could try DREE, maybe you could try another department". 1 say to the minister that one of the responsibilities of sitting in cabinet is to tell people honestly whether a project is viable or not, and not hold them on a string.


An hon. Member:: What about the double rail?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As of tonight rail relocation in Winnipeg is dead. How many jobs would that have created?


David Michael Collenette: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 understand that this is an employment bill. I just ask how many jobs would have been created. If the hon. member cannot see the relationship, I would ask him just to listen and wait.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There have been a number of speakers during the course of the evening from various sides of the House, and the ruling is that no valid point of order has been raised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I ask the minister when he will take his responsibilities for the people of Winnipeg, for the people of Manitoba and for Canadians, and not constantly state, "Yes, we will do it", without having thought about it and without having given any consideration to whether or not the government can in fact deliver. The point is that the city of Winnipeg and the government of Manitoba are faced with the construction of this overpass which is not going to cost the same as it would a year ago, but rather an additional $2.5 million because of inflation.
M0)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The hon. member from Nova Scotia thinks this is rather funny and suggests that this will create more jobs, but it will not create more jobs. The question is, will the federal government at least come forward and pay the additional $2.5 million which the city of Winnipeg now faces because of a study that was requested, and when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) asked the city of Winnipeg to hold off for a year, during which time costs escalated and traffic piled up?
This minister has a bit of explaining to do not only in this House but to the residents of Winnipeg and of the province of Manitoba generally. When promises are made ministers
Employment Tax Credit Act
should not try to break them. If the minister cannot deliver on his promises he would be better off, as we all would be, not to make them.
Let me return to the bill. The minister feels some relief in that he thinks I am moving on to another point. I will come back to rail relocation, so he should just settle down.
I do not believe we will reduce unemployment until such time as we reduce inflation. We must recognize that there is not a greater single contributor to inflation than big government. The Auditor General in his report pointed out inefficiencies that are inflationary. Inflation reduces confidence, which in turn reduces investment. Why is it that Canadians are looking for other places in which to invest? As they do that jobs are lost here.
The government must address itself very seriously to the question of how we can reduce the inflation we now face. It can make a great contribution toward this reduction by getting its house in order and becoming efficient. I know this government and the former minister of finance have said that inflation is imported and we cannot do anything about it. We recognize that there is a certain amount of truth in that statement, but our entire inflation is not imported.
We note the statement in the throne speech that this government will be more efficient. I hope that is the case, but I do not place too much faith in that in view of the record of this administration. This government is saying almost in the same breath that it wants to be bigger. I suggest that when governments at all levels are taking over 40 per cent of our gross national product for various projects, and when the federal government is spending 25 per cent more than its revenues on an annualized basis, that is not a very hopeful sign. This minister has a reputation for being one of the big spenders.


An hon. Member:: Already.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Already. He has the reputation for being one of the people in the cabinet who will advocate more and more government intervention, and more and more government spending, on the theory, I guess, that bigger government is better. I ask him to reconsider that philosophy and to change it very quickly.
The only way, with our economy, that we can win the battle against inflation and unemployment is by relying on individual Canadian men and women to invest in this country. I believe Canadians will invest, but not because of a commitment by this government as I think they no longer believe its promises. They will invest if they see tangible signs that their investments will not ever increasingly be taxed or frittered away. When Canadians begin to invest, jobs will be created. This in no small way will help.
Let me address the problem of unemployment in northern Canada. Over the last ten years northern Canada has become increasingly dependent upon government. Because of regulations, our tax system and permits from federal and other levels of government, a small business virtually cannot exist north of 60. I suggest that the minister should consider tax regimes

April 24, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
which allow individual Canadians to invest in the north. To a great extent this is where future employment possibilities exist. Even if we put our imaginations to work, I think we would fall short of the real potential that exists in the north. I suggest to this government, specifically this minister, that consideration must be given to special employment programs in Canada's north, and I do not restrict that necessarily to north of 60.
From what I have seen, and 1 think this is borne out by the practical experience of those who are in the north, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do business there. If you cannot get a government contract or cannot become the supplier of some government project, the chance that you will survive financially is at best tenuous. We must start looking to employment and investment strategies in this way, particularly as they apply to specific areas, to meet specific needs and to address specific problems. The north today should not be more dependent upon government than it was ten years ago, yet we see one project after another that could begin to reverse this trend blocked through regulation by government of one form or another.
In the area of native employment, the employment tax credit program is of no great benefit. Hon. members will notice that I did not say it was of no help. That is because I do not have before me the number of jobs that have been created for native people. Generally speaking, the program offers jobs which native people cannot fill and, therefore, does not offer the opportunity to these people that such a program should. We cannot continue indefinitely to allow the potential of these people to be lost. The programs established for Canada's native people should be more specific.
However, we must get away from offering term jobs. So many of these jobs expire when the term expires, and hope disappears as well. The government must offer jobs based on viable economic activity rather than on artificial, well inten-tioned government programs. The minister has said that
50,000	new jobs will be recreated. I hope that he is correct. I have made my suspicions known to officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration, not only about the figure of the 50,000 jobs, but also the figures they offer on program after program, week after week, and month after month. I am sure that if we were to add all these figures together, they would indicate that we have no unemployment. We receive these sorts of figures from the Department of Employment and Immigration and as well from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. While it is the spirit of government to paint as rosy a picture as possible, I would ask that this government give a realistic picture.
Too often it is the case with these programs that the same job is counted under one program, and when that program ends and another one is established, the same person is counted as having taken a job under that program. By this process two jobs have been created. When the second program ends, that person may be unemployed, but the figures show that two jobs have been created. The government must revise the
manner in which it collects job statistics. It cannot have it both ways, with unemployment running as high as one million people and yet the figures show that jobs have been created, and in effect indicate that there is little or no unemployment.
I ask that the minister bring in programs which he can deliver, instead of making promises for which he does not have enough clout in cabinet to carry through, as we saw today. The government has said in the throne speech that Canadians are realistic people.


An hon. Member:: It did not mean you.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I take myself to be a Canadian. Canadians prefer the truth to promises which cannot be delivered. I would say to the minister, "Take your responsibility in that way, and think before you speak".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It relates to the relocation of the Canadian Pacific railyards in Winnipeg, to which the hon. member has made reference. Does he not feel that, instead of accepting relocation as dead because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) said no to the delegation from Winnipeg which was here today, he should be joining with the rest of us in pressing the government to keep the issue alive? As the minister knows, the yards are in my constituency, and as one concerned for the welfare of the people who live on both sides of these yards, I say they must go.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), yes, I will continue pressing. I would like to remind the hon. member that I moved a Standing Order 43 yesterday asking this government, with regard to rail relocation, to consider the matter, to accept the terms of reference of the city of Winnipeg, and that it give its decision within the time limit asked for by the city of Winnipeg, namely, the end of May.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) has done the same thing, and I am glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has now joined with us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has now expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the hon. member about some of us joining him is completely wrong.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You haven't joined anything since Boy Scouts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have been pressing this matter for years.
April 24, 1980


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a point of argument, not a point of order, as the hon. member very well knows.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, may I seize this opportunity-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Don't seize it, you might constrict yourself.


Maurice James Harquail: I often refer to yahoos from the west, but I see that we also have some yahoos from the east with us tonight, an hon. member who is quite well-known for his shenanigans in the House of Commons.
Since this is my first opportunity to speak in this Thirty-second Parliament, I want to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the chair, and through you, sir, express my congratulations to Madam Speaker.
I am speaking in support of this positive measure, the second reading and reference to Committee of the Whole of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act. The program is designed to provide a federal income tax advantage to employers who hire unemployed persons to fill newly-created jobs which are in addition to their normal work force.
The tax credit program is being extended because of its effectiveness and low cost. However, this government does not intend to place single-minded reliance on the program simply because it does not answer all of the unemployment problems in Canada. Being the representative of a constituency in Atlantic Canada, I am, as I am sure are members on all sides of the House, anxious to see this measure adopted as quickly as possible.
This proposal was first tabled in the House by a previous Liberal administration in a previous Parliament. There has already been enough time lost through delay.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: I encourage the opposition House leader to co-operate with us.


Walter David Baker: I always have.


Maurice James Harquail: I thank the hon. member for his co-operation in this regard, and I hope that he will see his way clear to assist in the early adoption of this important measure. Of the more than 25,000 employers who have signed agreements under the employment tax credit program, 92 per cent of them have indicated in an interim survey that they would participate again.
The figures indicate that the greatest number of employers who have hired employees under the program come from Ontario and Quebec. However, on a percentage basis New Brunswick employers are second only to Quebec. Over-all use of the program in the Atlantic provinces was very high. On an average 88 per cent of the employers in the Atlantic region took advantage of the program, and as a result these firms have benefited greatly.
Adjournment Debate
Because of the lengthy speech by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), I will have to return at a later date to conclude my remarks, but I would like to stress the importance of assistance to Canadian youth who have suffered more than their fair share as a result of unemployment.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity during the adjournment debate to deal with the most unsatisfactory answers given to me on Tuesday of this week by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in connection with the report of the Auditor General, tabled in this House last week, as that report dealt with inefficiency in the public service. I wish to say at the outset that my questions were asked out of a general regard for improved efficiency and economy in government.
The questions 1 directed to the minister related to the specific steps that he proposed to take in connection with public service matters, in order to ensure that the taxpayers of Canada received a fair day's work from their public servants. I also inquired at that time if targets and dates were to be established for staff reductions. Some of my language was borrowed directly from the report of the Auditor General who, at page 23 of the Conspectus, stated as follows:
These evaluations of current productivity levels raise an important question: if the government's policy is to ensure that employees receive a fair day's wage, should it not also be a policy for both management and employees to ensure that the employer (in effect, the taxpayer) receive a fair day's work in exchange?
The evaluation referred to in that extract is set out on page 22 of the Conspectus, and in paragraphs 9.99 and following on page 197 of the report itself. Of an authorized staff of
355,000,	some 50,000 public servants were tested for efficiency, and the average level of efficiency was established at 60.8 per cent. Employees in private sector organizations were similarly tested by the Auditor General and they produced an efficiency rating of 87.7 per cent.
The conclusion referred to on page 22 of the Conspectus states in part as follows:
If these results are typical of the occupational group and if a minimum acceptable level of 80 per cent efficiency could be attained, then the work now performed by 50,000 employees could be performed by 38,000.
It should be remembered that in arriving at those figures the Auditor General is referring to a minimum efficiency level of

April 24, 1980
\
Adjournment Debate
80 per cent, while the level attained by actual tests in private industry was found to be 87.7 per cent. If we apply the appropriate multiple of 7.1 to the 12,000 figure arrived at by making a simple subtraction of the two figures referred to in the paragraph just quoted, then there were 85,200 public servants excess to requirements at the time the report was prepared.
How seriously did the Auditor General view this matter? At page 199 of his report, in paragraph 9.111 he wrote:
We suggest that the criterion of 80 per cent performance should be considered the minimum acceptable level of efficiency in government. This level, however, is not necessarily an ultimate target for government. Clearly, government has the responsibility for stating its target performance, which may be well in excess of 80 per cent. We consider performance below 80 per cent to be evidence of a lack of due regard for efficiency, and thus a matter that should be brought to the attention of Parliament.
Of course the Auditor General is the servant of Parliament.
At page 23 of the Conspectus he says:
This is the sort of issue that I think must be addressed constructively at the highest level of government and reflected in an integrated action plan for general management.
1 entirely agree. Under section 5(1 )(e) of the Financial Administration Act, Treasury Board has responsibility for personnel management in the public service, and the President of the Treasury Board is the chief officer. 1 accordingly call upon the President of the Treasury Board to pursue with vigor the nagging but, I fear, growing problem of inefficiency in the public service.
It is no answer to suggest, as he did to me in responding to my question, that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and I, as a member of that committee, may make evaluations. I made my evaluation, and the public has had confirmed what it has known for years, that the public service is not delivering fair value for the money that they receive in remuneration. It is the task of the minister to provide the concrete proposals which are demanded and not simply to stall, hinder, and delay the necessary process.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I would want to state for the record that probably this evening is again an example of the need that we have in this particular institution for some change, inasmuch as we can have the kind of accusations and kind of positions taken by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) without full opportunity with an equal time frame to be able to respond and cover all of the points that were raised, both here and in the House when the question was first asked. One can only hope that is going to change at some time in the very near future.
In the second instance, I would like to refer to some of the comments made by the hon. member for York North, particularly this evening when he referred to the answer that was given to him by the minister on the day in question, and particularly when he suggested that in fact the minister was saying to him that he would have the opportunity to examine
or to review this in the committee. The minister was not asking him only to examine and review, but rather to examine very closely the premises upon which the kind of recommendation was being made by the Auditor General, the kind of thing that all members of Parliament, I would hope, would want to do, not because we start from the position that the report is or may be wrong, but rather that members of this House would not want to accept any report without examining the premises, without determining whether or not it was a valid type test that was being projected across all of the public service, and without wanting to accept carte blanche everything that was put down on the piece of paper as being what it presented itself to be.
The government of the day is in fact carrying out a program of restraint of both expenditure and public service growth that was introduced by this government for the 1976-77 fiscal year. We now have a five-year record which bears scrutiny. The authorized size of the public service controlled by the Treasury Board was 317,184 in 1975-76. As shown in the 1980-81 main estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), the authorized size of the public service for 1980-81 is 312,595. The size of the controlled public service has actually declined by 4,589, or 1.4 per cent, over the five years of restraint. There can be no doubt that with the many greatly increased services being provided now as compared to 1975, and with a smaller public service, such a reduction in the size of the public service implies significant gains in productivity in many areas.
That is not to say that the end has been achieved. But it should certainly put us in a position as members of this House, so as not to be so hasty in standing on our feet immediately after a report without testing the report and bashing the civil servants wherever we find them. This country has been well served by the civil servants, and we should be the first to stand up and protect them.
I have many other items I would like to add in answer to the question the member has put. I know he put it sincerely. Unfortunately, time will not permit me to answer all of the areas he has covered. All I would ask-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


PENITENTIARIES-SHOWING OF SEX FILM TO INMATES
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, some months ago I received a document in the mail which was in fact a copy of an interdepartmental memorandum from the British Columbia penitentiary. There was no signature on the envelope, and I am sure that the person who wrote the memorandum was not the person who sent it to me. The subject matter had to do with the fact that the B.C. penitentiary authorities showed to the general population of inmates on September 1 and 3 a pornographic movie entitled, "The Night of the Voyeur". The memorandum said in part:
It is the opinion of all officers who viewed this movie that it will do nothing but encourage homosexual acts or relations in this or any other institution.

April 24, 1980

I know that the minister said that day that he would look into the matter. I was referring specifically that day to a letter 1 had received from the commissioner of corrections in which he says:
As part of a policy to provide an environment which, within the limits necessarily dictated by incarceration emulates the normal-
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, as I did two days ago when I asked the question if he considers movies like "The Night of the Voyeur" as emulating the normal. If that is the normal, I should like to know from the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) what is his idea of the bizarre.
We asked a few questions about it. We got in touch with the film classification officer. The commissioner of corrections goes on to say that they show these movies, and that the movies which are the subject of this gentleman's complaint are classified as adult. I went on to contact the film commissioner's office and 1 found out that federal institutions do not have to pay any attention to classifications given by provincial governments. They can ignore them completely because that is what the regulations say. I found that federal officers did in fact phone the classification officer and that in this case telephone calls were made from the federal authorities in connection with the film, and they were made aware of its contents.
This is what they were told about the film: "It is so classified that it is restricted from drive-in theatres". That should tell us a little about it. "It is so classified that any theatre wishing to show it has to get permission to show it every time they want to do so." They were told it was restricted, with a warning: "completely concerned with sex; there is no story line, it is a stag film." This is what the commissioner of corrections says is adult. This is what he says is something which emulates the normal. What is the bizarre, if that is normal?
The Solicitor General said he would look into this and see what it was all about. So he did, and I congratulate him on his quick response. I suspect, though, that it was not a thorough response because in one day, in response to my question yesterday, he apparently had done all the research as to whether or not this was a suitable film for the penitentiary service. He says in his letter to me:
I have reviewed the letter the commissioner of Corrections addressed to you on this matter and I am satisfied that the policy and practice of the service on this issue is fair and reasonable.
Do we need to wonder why we have problems in the correctional service of this country when the officers in the pen cave in to prisoners' requests and show these kinds of movies? Is it any wonder that the officers in the penitentiary service are worried about what will happen in the penitentiaries when these kinds of movies are shown to the inmates? As I have said to some people, it seems to me that the policy of this minister and of previous ministers in this department is that they seem to want to make rehabilitation more exciting than the original
Adjournment Debate
crime. It seems to me that we should not inject more of the disease in order to cure the patient.
I have put a question on the order paper, and I wonder how long it will take for the minister and his officials to answer it. I would like to know how many times films like this have been shown in the penitentiaries. I wonder if there is a correlation between the kinds of movies which have been shown and the dates when there were rebellions, insurrections, or hostage takings in the institutions. I wonder if there is any correlation, and I wonder how long it will take the minister to answer my question on the order paper, and what kind of evidence we are going to find in that answer. I think it is deplorable that we have the kind of administration in the penitentiary service which allows this to happen, and I hope we get a response from the parliamentary secretary tonight.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: I thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) for coming back with this question to allow us to expand on what he calls an incident which I think corresponds very simply with a reality that may exist also outside penitentiaries, as my colleague admitted. I must say that indeed that answer follows up and provides additional explanations on a letter sent to his colleague, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) in October 1979, and which had not been answered at the time the Solicitor General was appointed. Furthermore, I confirm that this movie was approved from a classification standpoint by the classification board of B.C., meaning that it was indeed rated for adults, so to be used as such. On the other hand, it was also listed as being acceptable in a book entitled the "Theatre Manager's Handbook" and recorded as such in that directory. Furthermore, I would like to add that the rental of the movie was paid for by the inmates, who did not have to watch it. And, of course, if hon. members must define individual normality, I think we are in a very poor position to do so. As to the suggestion about the link with hostage takings, I think that question perhaps is not all that relevant and related to the issue of pornographic movies or movies dealing with sexual matters. On the other hand, of course, as a woman I did not have an opportunity to watch movies like that that are shown in remote places. I know that in James Bay that kind of movie is shown regularly and that the population there is mostly male. As for the army, although I never joined the armed forces which are mostly made up of men, I am told that such films are shown. I therefore believe that prisoners are treated like people living in remote regions, in any case in a community which is not like ours. I think that those prisoners should be treated like normal human beings, that is capable of judging the merits of a film. It is possible that prison officials do not particularly care for certain films. It is a matter of taste and it does not rest with any penitentiary to determine the cultural value of films shown to the inmates because they have chosen films which have been approved by British Columbia

April 24, 1980
Adjournment Debate
censors. In this connection, I think that all necessary standards to provide from time to time entertainment chosen by the prisoners have been complied with and I will be pleased to give further details to my colleague. I know that limited time is allotted to answer, and the film may seem strange. I would be prepared to go and see it with him because I have not seen it. To determine that kind of criteria and judge for ourselves, I think we have to see the film.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES-IMPROVED FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO PARLIAMENT
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I asked to speak here this evening so as to receive a satisfactory answer to a question which I had asked originally of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). The main thrust of my question is with regard to the Auditor General's report which was tabled last week.
My understanding of the main thrust of the Auditor General's report was that government spending was totally out of control, although the Conservatives have dumped the blame on the backs of the civil servants, and some members of the press have picked up the case of the $2 million boat which will not float, and the $4 million worth of CBC equipment over which no one has inventory control. However, I do not really think, with all respect to Mr. Macdonell, that that was the main thrust of his report. As I said, I think the main thrust of the report was that government spending is and has been out of control for quite some time now.
He has indicated that in several reports over the period of his six-year appointment. During his six-year term some 15 commissions have been set up to study this problem within the government, and hundreds of other interdepartmental studies have been carried out. What all of them seem to boil down to is that the problem is inefficiency and lack of accountability. As I have said, these have been put on the back of the civil servants and the conclusion was reached that there should be cuts in the civil service. As was mentioned in the estimates which were tabled recently, there will be cuts of some 5,840 person-years of employment. Yet some of the areas in which cuts are proposed, such as, for example, in the Canadian Transportation Commission, need to be beefed up, such as safety, for example. Perhaps if the cuts had not taken place in some areas we would not have had the incident which occurred at Mississauga, Ontario, or the incident at Macgregor in Manitoba. The recommendations that are made in the name of accountability number in the hundreds.
The answer from the President of the Treasury Board to my first question was that the problem of inefficiency and lack of accountability in the government is being given priority attention by the government. However, the priority seems to be put aside because of the fact that we do not have a way of testing it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Daudlin) said that we should test these reports first. But there is no way of testing the 15 reports that
have probably come down with thousands of recommendations.
So the thrust of the supplementary question which I put to the President of the Treasury Board and which he did not answer-he admitted it later when I spoke to him outside the House-was whether this government will set up a special committee to study the large number of recommendations which have been made to improve the accountability and the efficiency of the government. We do not need cuts in the number of civil servants; we need to use them more efficiently. Why blame the civil servants when the fault lies with the administration? The government which have been in control for the last 113 years have addressed themselves to crisis situations, they have not gone into long-term planning or into problem solving in the over-all context. There is no industrial strategy and no economic policy to guide the government. If the numerous studies that we have could be considered by a special committee, perhaps these problems could be overcome.
At the present time I understand that many of these reports and the recommendations have been given to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The public accounts committee is now overworked. It is likely the busiest committee within government, the busiest standing committee we have. Although the government says that it will give it some kind of a priority, there is no way to do that. There is no forum set up to look at the recommendations, bring them back to Parliament, and to help improve the information that comes to Parliament so that as parliamentarians we can make government more accountable. Right now not only does the government not understand much of the information which comes to Parliament, opposition members do not understand it either, the press does not understand the information that comes to Parliament, and therefore, the Canadian people do not understand it. Canadians may be confused, but so are the parliamentarians and the press.
I think the time is now to have a special committee struck to study these things to which I referred. My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is: will this government in fact strike a special committee to study these urgent and pressing concerns to which I have just alluded?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, without trying to sound too prideful, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that perhaps he was speaking for a more limited group and perhaps, indeed, only for himself, when he spoke of members not understanding what was coming to Parliament. Without saying that I understand everything, I would like to say that I have a far greater grasp than not understanding anything that comes to this place.
As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) stated in the House on April 17, 1980, improving the financial information to Parliament is a priority item to the Treasury Board. It has been noted, notwithstanding the fact there has
April 24, 1980

been an adjustment in terms of the time frame for delivering this new type of information and assistance to the House, that in fact major advances have taken place on the project and that the major causes for the delay which has taken place to date have not been a lack of commitment to change, but rather the complexity of the proposed changes.
The member will be able to judge that meaningful progress indeed has been made when he realizes that the Comptroller General has established a Government of Canada reporting division, headed by the assistant comptroller general, which brings together for the first time responsibility for improving the information available to Parliament in both the estimates and public accounts. This step is essential in ensuring that the after-the-fact reporting in public accounts is compatible with any revised estimates. In addition, those groups internal to the government with special interests in these reforms have been brought together and are committed to the project. As recommended by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, a steering committee has been established which includes the Secretary of the Treasury Board, the Comptroller General and the Auditor General.
An over-all plan has been developed which takes into account the various tasks necessary to develop and implement the required changes to the estimates and public accounts. Although the implementation of this change will of necessity be done over several years, a number of major projects will be presented to parliamentarians for their views and comments. I
Adjournment Debate
can add more specifically that Mr. N. G. Ross, a partner with the firm of Coopers and Lybrand, who has extensive experience in this area, is currently under contract with the office of the Comptroller General as an adviser on all aspects of the project. He will assist in the development of various concept papers which it is our intent to make available for comment by parliamentarians later this fiscal year.
In addition to these concept papers, pilot studies at both central agency and departmental levels will be conducted. These studies will result in illustrative estimates incorporating proposed changes being made available to parliamentarians for their review and comment, hopefully in the late fall of this year.
I recognize the hon. member has suggested that in fact the tools we have in this House will be inadequate to examine this kind of report. I take as a submission from him that in fact he would prefer to see a special committee set up in order to receive these reports, as opposed to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Surely we can treat this only as a submission, as one of the avenues available to us, and I would join him in delivering that submission to the House leader for his consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Friday, April 25, 1980