1980-12-08

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the House a matter of some urgent and pressing necessity. My motion is with respect to the proposed pay-out of sales tax which has been extended to foreign companies for dredging in Canada and the unfair advantage this policy gives to non-Canadian equipment, as well as to non-Canadian labour and employment opportunities, inasmuch as it denies personal and corporate revenues to Canada. It denies full utilization of Canadian shipyards, their labour and materials, and it inhibits the development of Arctic technology in dredging. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the government give immediate and urgent attention to the tendering procedures that will ensure equitable treatment of Canadian dredging companies and at the same time maximize the utility of Canadian technological expertise and tax return to this government.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Of the total sales volume of all the businesses in Canada, 28 per cent is made up of small business transactions. These firms employ about 2.5 million people. Indeed, these people make up 42 per cent of all business employment in the whole country. How long does this government intend to penalize business people with interest rates which are currently 151/2 per cent or more? Therefore I
move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this government, having been silent in the aftermath of their campaign promises, and having deepened the silence in their budget, act to help small businesses by extending the term of the small business development bonds program, qualifying spouses of independent businessmen for business expenses, and by enacting other measures which the previous Conservative government was prevented from doing by the often-referred to "Liberal Democratic Party of Canada".


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canada's chartered banks have raised the prime lending rate one full point to 15.5 per cent and restricted the increased interest rate on depositors' savings accounts to just 0.75 per cent, thereby increasing their interest rates and so permitting another increase in the already substantial bank profits, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House condemns Canada's chartered banks for again taking advantage of the higher interest rates and ripping off Canadian consumers.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous

December 8, 1980
consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that two families representing the last group of 60,000 Indo-Chinese refugees arrived in Canada are in the House today, I am pleased to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the House acknowledge the efforts and the generosity of thousands of Canadians who have helped the families of Indo-Chinese refugees to settle down in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas oil companies and oil rigs are leaving Canada en masse for the United States, taking capital and jobs with them, while others have already cut back their 1981 budgets, including Ontario steel mills; whereas industries throughout Canada have already slowed down, causing greater unemployment and a lower GNP, and whereas even former Liberals in Alberta, including a former Liberal MP, Dr. Hu Harries, have denounced Mr. Trudeau's energy package, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That this House, before there is a catastrophe too shocking to think of, urges the Liberal government to offer Alberta a complete energy package, including 75 per cent of world prices for conventional oil and world prices for other oils, and the removal of the excise tax on a provincial resource.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the obvious and complete failure of the MacEachen budget and Liberal energy policy to strengthen the Canadian economy and to encourage investment in Canada, as witnessed
by reports of billions of dollars of potential Canadian investment flowing south into the U.S. market because of the poor economic climate created by this government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House direct the finance minister to scrap his current budget and energy policy and revert to the Crosbie budget, which was designed to encourage investment in Canada and to strengthen the Canadian economy.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House recognizes that couples 65 years of age or over have to spend one-fifth of their income on food and, and that food prices are rising at the rate of 14 per cent or 15 per cent, which means that the present system of indexing falls far short of enabling senior citizens to maintain an adequate standard of living, and this House therefore calls on the government to implement its promise to provide help where help is needed by making an immediate increase in the rate of the pension paid to Canada's senior citizens.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent? of the House. Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and what can be more important than the lives of Canadians? In a press comment last week it was said that last year 785 Canadians were jailed in foreign countries, 426 died abroad, 594 were hospitalized, while others have simply vanished. Some of the worst situations arise in Mexico, but trade consideration, including that of Mexican oil, hamper, hinder and delay inquiries and even the obtaining of simple information as to the whereabouts of those lost Canadians. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That when the Prime Minister visits the President of Mexico in January of next year, he raise the matter of this disproportionate number of Canadians who encounter detainment, violence and even death in mysterious ways and that he
December 8, 1980

initiate action which would dispel this country's apparent lack of concern for the liberties and lives of Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the Flouse. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The policy of the Liberal party, as expressed last November 6 by the finance critic, is as follows:
The Liberals and I generally want action now to prevent the hardship this Conservative high interest rate policy is creating for millions of Canadians and their families.
The present government's interest rate policy is not different; that has been amply proven in the last nine months. The prime rate at the bank is 15.5 per cent, which is higher than at any time during the nine months we were in office.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. We responded with a small business development bond to help small business, a mortgage and property tax program to help the home owner and an energy tax credit to help lower income people. We helped unincorporated businesses with tax concessions which have been adopted by this government. What is the government going to respond with now that interest rates are higher than they were during our time? What action will the Prime Minister take to help prevent the hardship of this high interest rate situation?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like the hon. member to note that the question of interest rates is not one which should be determined to the minute or to the day. It must be examined and analysed regularly. The hon. member must recall the explanations he gave himself in reply to questions asked in this House since he has taken it upon himself to quote people who made some comments at the time when he was finance minister. He must therefore remember the replies he gave, the principles on which he based his answers and his explanations to the effect that interest rates are interrelated to other economic phenomena. In our opinion, these difficult times that we are now going through will be over relatively
Oral Questions
quickly because of the medium and long-term action outlined by the Minister of Finance in his budget.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. This is the only House where you ask a question of Popeye and get the answer from Olive Oyl.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. The fifth plank of the Prime Minister's economic program of last January 12 was, and I quote:
Fifth, the Liberal party commits itself to enhancing the dignity and security of individual Canadians.
That is the fifth plank. He went on to say:
We must endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job.
How is permitting interest rates to increase, permitting unemployment to go to 1,120,000 next year, which is what the Minister of Finance predicts, permitting energy costs to go up, permitting a decrease in the GNP by 1 per cent this year,- going to enhance the dignity and security of individual Canadians? Don't bother referring to the $35 per month increase in the GIS; that is long since gone. When is the Prime Minister going to carry out that commitment and how is he going to carry it out?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is falling into the trap that the Minister of Finance has been able to avoid. He is raising all kinds of problems, be it inflation, unemployment or an ever present recession problem; at the same time, he would like these problems to be solved overnight in a somewhat miraculous way. Obviously, and it is just common sense, unemployment, inflation, interest rates, recession will not be solved all together at the same time; they will be solved through consistent medium and long-term action. In our view, such action is to be directed mainly toward a strong fight against inflation so that in the medium and long range, all Canadians will be better off thanks to an improved economy. It is based also on an economic recovery brought about by the national energy program announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If we refer to the last quarter, some figures on national accounts, we can see that some progress has been made and that the effects of a lessening recession can already be felt.


John Carnell Crosbie: These answers are stupefying, Madam Speaker. They are simply stupefying.
I want to address my last supplementary to the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he is annoyed with me or whether he is not interested in the economy. Perhaps he is not interested because it is not a question about the constitution. Nevertheless, could 1 put it to the Prime Minister again. The Prime Minister made his own personal pledge last January

December 8, 1980
Oral Questions
that he was going to enhance the dignity and security of individual Canadians and endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job. At that time 1979 had come to a close and the average unemployment for the year was 838,000. The average predicted by his minister for next year is 1,120,000, which is an increase of almost 200,000. Do the Prime Minister's election pledges mean anything to him? Do these commitments mean anything? Obviously they do not seem to but 1 have a large heart and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Will the Prime Minister explain to me how he is going to carry out these pledges, or will he make any attempt at all to carry them out?


Mr. Paproski:: You are sitting on your pledges.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is trying to scare the people with a big figure, namely, one million. He should know that the prime basis of a figure is its relativity, that is, its significance in relation to something else. He should also know that our performance since our return to power compared with what he had forecast means that there are more jobs available and that the rate of unemployment has gone down; had we implemented the economic policies he advocated in his budget, we would have many more than one million unemployed; the country would be faced with absolutely staggering rates of unemployment.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I must say it would not surprise me if he does not answer it since he has consistently taken so little interest in this subject. Last January 12, the Prime Minister said:
Wc must reaffirm the rights of women and forthrightly say to every employer that women must receive the same wages and benefits as men. There is no place for sex discrimination on the job.
It is now six months since the Canadian Human Rights Commission condemned the federal government and considered it guilty of violating the equal pay provisions in its refusal to grant some 3,000 women employees, mostly laundry and cafeteria workers, equal pay for work of equal value. In light of what the Prime Minister said on January 12 and in view of the Canadian Human Rights Commission condemnation, I ask the Prime Minister-or if he will not answer, then I ask the minister responsible for the status of women or the President of the Treasury Board-when the government will honour the commitments which the Prime Minister made to Canadian women last January. When will the government correct this injustice which is being perpetrated against some
3,000 women employees of the civil service who are cafeteria and laundry workers?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this government is firmly committed to that provision. In fact, it was a Liberal government which brought in the provision.
The issue is a very technical one. I have had meetings with Gordon Fairweather and with other representatives of the commission to discuss means whereby this particular dispute can be settled effectively. It is not a simple question of saying, "Let us settle at a particular level", because the group in question is to be compared with another group which has a number of sublevels. One of the issues in the interpretation ot that provision is what level is to be selected. Is it the highest level, the lowest level or the median? This is something which has been discussed and negotiated with the commission.
We are looking for guidance from the commission and we are continuing to attempt to settle this dispute, which we acknowledge as a legitimate grievance. There are a number of others that have been raised. Apart from that, we have taken action in Treasury Board to seek areas of abuse so as to ensure that the spirit of that part of the law, section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, can be properly applied.


EQUAL PAY AND BENEFITS FOR WOMEN
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is the same tired, old excuses when it comes to the government producing equitable solutions for women. I would like to ask a supplementary question. 1 presume the Prime Minister will not answer, so 1 will direct it to the minister responsible for the status of women. Last month the Advisory Council on the Status of Women produced a report which showed that, after five years of the so-called equal opportunities program of the government, the scientific and professional category of public servants, those in the higher paid jobs, now has a higher percentage of men than five years ago, whereas in the administrative support category, the clerks and secretaries who are at the lowest end of the salary scale, there is now a higher percentage of women than five years ago. In other words, the situation with regard to pay scales is getting worse for women rather than better.
I would like to ask the minister responsible for the status of women when he or any member of the government is going to honour the commitments made last January by the Prime Minister so that women can receive the same pay and the same benefits as men.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would tell the hon. member we are already in the process of honouring that commitment by establishing the affirmative action program for the public service which was announced last July. The results of that affirmative action program are to establish very clear directions to government departments by which they can make sure there is equal opportunity, and to bring about any changes in
December 8, 1980

regulations, legislation, training or hiring programs to ensure there is equality of access, opportunity and treatment. That step began last July. The first phase is already completed in terms of hiring and putting in place affirmative action counsellors in each of the departments. We are now proceeding to the second phase of the operation.
IVliss MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the announcement at the time the government tiptoed into the affirmative action program was that there would be three distinct stages in the development of the affirmative action strategy. Those three stages were analysis, policy review and planned development. Does the minister realize that women have been analysed, policy reviewed and plan developed to death? Those things have been going on year after year with no noticeable improvement. We are not asking for more review, analysis and planned development, but action, and we want to know from the minister when this action is going to take place.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 will be pleased to take the opportunity to explain the affirmative action program to the hon. member because it is quite obvious that she has not looked at the details of that managerial operation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 have read it.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is a very sophisticated managerial tool.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Members of the NDP may not think so because simple minds see things in simple ways. The fact is that it is a very important step forward, one that has been recognized by most women's organizations in this country as something that is long overdue. We intend to proceed with that program in a deliberate and proper way, and not be pushed into it by these kinds of remarks by the hon. member opposite.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I will preface it by saying that unless the Prime Minister answers questions in this House of Commons, there is no point at all in his coming here for the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: On Friday, in reply to a question from a journalist on the escalating cost of food, the Prime Minister said that Canadians would have to "switch priorities and spend a bit more on food". Food prices are forecast to go up more than 14 per cent next year, which is what they went up this year. Farm income is going to go down. A good reason for that is that interest charges paid by farmers will go up by more than 20 per cent, and this increase is automatically passed on,
Oral Questions
understandably, to the consumer. 1 would ask the Prime Minister, who is busy advising Canadians what to do about switching priorities, if he will do the same and take some direct action now to bring down the level of interest rates.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I want to tell my hon. friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that I cannot accept his advice about not being here simply because 1 have not answered a couple of questions. They were answered perfectly well by the relevant ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the New Democratic Party should know, and if he does not he should look up his files, that we have a minister of state for economic affairs who speaks for the Minister of Finance when he is not here, and we have a minister responsible for the status of women who answers questions on that subject. We have a President of the Treasury Board who is responsible for the employees hired by the federal government. Therefore, 1 do not accept his enjoind-er that 1 have to answer all questions in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Who made the statement?


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the point is that the Prime Minister has not answered any questions. The Prime Minister has general responsibility for the Government of Canada. When a rpember of the opposition, whether a member of this party or the Conservative party, raises a question for the Prime Minister, he should have the courtesy to answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Prime Minister had, in my view, the presumption to tell Canadians what to do in terms of organizing their family budget, as he did on Friday when he said they should switch their priorities and spend a little more on food, could he tell us how those who are on fixed incomes, those who are living at the poverty level, can be expected to carry out his advice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member lectures me on courtesy, I want to point out to him that it would be a courtesy to the ministers in this cabinet and who are assigned special responsibilities to have the questions relevant to their departments or their responsibilities addressed to them. That would be a courtesy on the part of the New Democratic leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is your statement, Pierre.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, there is no particular criticism of the relevant ministers. In this case the relevant

December 8, 1980
Oral Questions
ministers are in fact answering the questions. We may not agree with them but at least they have the courtesy to answer.
The question I put to the Prime Minister concerns a quotation from him. Since he has the presumption to advise the ordinary Canadian how he or she should change his or her family budget, could he tell us today if he knows the price of a pound of butter, does he know the price of a loaf of bread, does he know the price of a dozen eggs in downtown Ottawa where he presumably does his shopping?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may have had a quotation from me. I take it this exchange began because he told me there was no point in my coming here if I were not going to answer all questions addressed to me. In that sense, as far as the latter part of the question is concerned, it is of a statistical nature and the hon. member knows it is against the rules to ask statistics of a minister.


INQUIRY RESPECTING ASSISTANCE TO PENSIONERS AND LOW-INCOME CANADIANS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister gave advice to Canadians on Friday last, he said that if they wanted to maintain the same level of food on their tables they should reduce spending in other areas. What advice is the Prime Minister prepared to give to the one million unemployed Canadians whose budget is taken up by food costs, shelter costs and fuel costs? They have no other areas where they can cut back. We already know that over half of the guaranteed income supplement increase of $35 to old age pensioners is gradually being eaten up by fuel cost increases and food price increases. What advice does the Prime Minister have for the low-income Canadians and the old age pensioners of this country who have no other place to go? They have no other areas where they can cut back.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes much of the answer I gave to the question put to me the other day about increased prices of food. 1 take it he himself knows it is a common sense matter when you have a set budget to spend more or less of it on the aspects which are more necessary to your daily life, and this happens all the time. I am sure the hon. member practises this particular policy, as does everyone, so there is nothing surprising in that advice.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to forget we are not talking about the average Canadian. We are trying to make the case in this House for the million unemployed Canadians who have to get by on welfare or unemployment insurance and for the old age pensioners of this country whose incomes are being eaten up, indexing notwithstanding, by inflation and increased fuel prices. Let me ask this. On November 6, 1979, at page 1017 of Hansard, when the Minister of Employment and Immigration was in opposition, he said:
-if there is a requirement to raise interest rates, there is an equal requirement to help those people who are hurt by those interest rate increases.
That was the advice given by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration last November. I ask the Prime Minister what steps the government intends to take to offset increasing interest rates in this country which will increase unemployment, which will increase food costs and which will make it virtually impossible for low-income earners, the unemployed and the old age pensioners of this country to keep an adequate diet on their tables and enough fuel in the furnace to keep themselves warm? What advice does he have for these people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the member asks about what steps are being taken regarding pensioners. I remind him again that we have increased the old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement, by $35 a month.


An hon. Member:: It's all gone.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says it is all gone. It is a monthly cheque and it cannot be spent in advance. The hon. member asks what we are going to do to help them put fuel in their furnaces. Let me tell the hon. member, and perhaps even the noisy New Democrats, that we have a policy which is before the House now and which was put forth before the budget to make sure that fuel prices do not increase in an unacceptable way. If we only had the support of the hon. members opposite, that policy could be implemented very quickly rather than go to the kind of prices for fuel that their budget was going to impose, not only on old age pensioners but which would have literally crippled the economy if we followed the course proposed by another member opposite.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, may I try the Prime Minister with another quotation from his well-known speech in Toronto. I will quote very briefly from page 6:
We must increase the economic might of Canada by strengthening each of the regions. We will make the big projects happen, whether they be developing the fishery in the Atlantic, rebuilding the railways in the west, developing new manufacturing strength in Ontario and Quebec, or expanding British Columbia's resource and trade potential. We need a national government that builds up rather than tears down.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House very briefly of any tangible accomplishment he and his administration have accomplished in this regard since he returned to office, other than the negative ones which have seen an exodus of people, investment and companies from this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked for tangible evidence. 1 refer him to the budget speech of a couple of months ago where he heard that the government plans to see some $15 billion spent over the next few years on the big projects of which he talks. This, of course, would call for the support of this House to
December 8, 1980

get the budgetary measures through. This $15 billion, if he looks at the budget speech, is to be spent in all parts of Canada. There is $4 billion specifically earmarked for the west, and the rest is for various projects related directly or indirectly to energy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which would create jobs, make Canada self-reliant in energy and permit this economy to bounce ahead. But we would need not the negative approach of the opposition but a constructive belief in Canada and support for this budget, and that is what 1 ask for.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, we in the opposition would be pleased to support the government if it brought forward anything tangible and worth while. It is interesting to see the government try to blame its own inadequacies on someone else again.
The Prime Minister said that he wanted to strengthen the regions. He promised to do that, but in Nova Scotia the fishing fleet is under pressure. It is said that its operations will be curtailed next year because of government policy. CN is retrenching its operations. The business plan for Sydney Steel has not been approved, and in Newfoundland unemployment insurance accounts for one-twelfth of the personal income of that province as opposed to one-fortieth in the rest of Canada.
1 respect the Prime Minister's preoccupations, but would he not agree, using mature and other reflective qualities, that perhaps his preoccupation with the constitution, and that of his government in this regard, has operated to the detriment not only of development of the regions but also of the economic thrust for the entire country? 1 do not want the Prime Minister to abandon totally his constitutional tasks, but would he not agree that it would be far more sensible for him to pay a little more attention to the management and guidance of the economy of this country so that he could fulfil some of the promises he made in such a definite way with his campaign rhetoric which many months later have not yet even begun to be fulfilled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about our preoccupation with the constitution. I have said repeatedly in this House and elsewhere that we would like to get the matter behind us. If it had not been for the stalling and procrastination of the hon. member's party, we would be on to other things now. Indeed, we could be moving forward with some of the projects to which I referred.
The hon. member asks what are tangible and worth-while projects. Let me talk to him about the Montreal-maritimes pipeline. We have been trying to build the first leg of that but we have not been able to get the co-operation of the government of Quebec. The pipeline was supposed to begin last spring; we will not be able to begin it until next spring. This is not the fault of the federal government. It is because-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Blame it on the provinces.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now the hon. member for Edmonton North wants to get into the act. I will gladly deal with him later.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Madam Speaker:: 1 draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Donald Stewart, the speaker of the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance responsible for exorbitant interest rates, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who presumably shares that responsibility.
In a prepared and prophetic speech delivered to a Financial Post conference on July 10 of this year, the Minister of Finance solemnly concluded that he himself found, and I quote:
-some affinity for the Keynes who wrote: "But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still."
In view of the avaricious and usurious interest rates now prevailing as a result of this government's action-or, rather, inaction-was the minister's Macbethian-sounding witches' prophecy of toil and trouble a simple short-term economic forecast, or was it rather a clear and definitive statement of long-term Liberal government policy?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would certainly not want to mix poetry and prophecy to the cruel and hard realities of the economy.
As 1 have just said in answer to another question, the situation with respect to interest rates is temporary and congruent with the present economic climate in North America.
All parliamentarians and all economic agents must support the government in its fight against inflation and promote a climate which will allow us progressively to achieve economic recovery. All other factors in the economy will adjust accordingly, and interest rates will return to more acceptable levels.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, that is more boil and bubble than toil and trouble, but toil and trouble is obviously all that thousands of Canadian home builders, woodworkers

December 8, 1980
Oral Questions
and mortgagees who are caught by the rise in this government's interest rates can expect from the government.
My supplementary question is again directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. When will the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the government stop this act from Macbeth and quit trying to wash their hands of responsibility for the tragic results of their misdeeds?
Specifically, will the Prime Minister and the government now agree to free the Canadian dollar, take positive and decisive action, including action to make mortgages available from financial institutions at affordable rates, and stop this ruinous rise of interest rates, consequent foreclosures and resultant unemployment before this Shakespearian tragedy unfolds any further?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should have realized by now that the government does not use Canada and its economy as a sort of laboratory to test far-out economic theories. Our objective is to fight against inflation. The budget has mapped out the ways to achieve economic recovery, and with the support of the House and of the Canadian people as a whole, we will indeed achieve our objective and look forward to better times ahead as the economy regains its strength.


INDUSTRY
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my questioning follows along the line of questioning of the hon. member for St. John's West and deals with that infamous speech of the Prime Minister.
1 would like to ask the Prime Minister a question in two parts. In his speech of January 12 the Prime Minister gave as one of five promises the promise to bring economic stability to Canada by developing industrial policies. Point three in the Prime Minister's speech was to develop industrial policies which will provide jobs and spur growth.
My question is in two parts. First, before the Prime Minister passes the question on to someone else, did the Prime Minister write the speech? Did he produce this document? If he did produce this seven-page document on economic growth for Canada, would the Prime Minister please respond to this. In the area of central Ontario, and Peterborough in particular, Canadian General Electric is losing business. Would the Prime Minister please tell us what is in the budget which spurs economic and industrial development growth in central Ontario? What is in it which will create a lessening of unemployment? What is in the budget speech which will address point three, economic growth?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is paradoxical that the hon. member asks me if I wrote the speech just after a long question asked by Mr. Shakespeare. I will tell the hon. member who prepared my speech if he tells me who prepared his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to advise the Prime Minister that 1 personally prepared the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I will read the supplementary question, which I prepared, to the Prime Minister. In a recent policy statement on energy by the government of Ontario, the deputy premier of Ontario said that Ontario needs seven tar sands plants. If the Prime Minister is going to help the Premier of Ontario and the government of Ontario, why is he cutting three tar sands plants down to one through lack of a budgetary program which will initiate incentive? Why is he doing that rather than answering the premier and the government of Ontario when they say that they need seven to create jobs, employment and a good economic climate? I made the question up; let the Prime Minister try to answer it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member wrote that question, I must congratulate him. He should be sitting on the front bench instead of the comic character from Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where should you be? You won't answer questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to realize that we have not cut the tar sands. On the contrary, our budget and our energy policy are predicated on the importance of the tar sands projects going forward. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said repeatedly in this House, it is the Premier of Alberta who refuses to come to an agreement on the tar sands, for reasons best known to him, and this is an absolute-


John Carnell Crosbie: That is false.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says this is false. It is the premier himself who said that. If the hon. member thinks the premier is taking a falsehood out on him, he should blame the premier, not me.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services who issued a press release today indicating that Scan Marine and Saint
December 8, 1980

John Shipbuilding are the winners for the contract definition phase for the Canadian patrol frigate. I must say I am surprised and disappointed that the minister did not take the more honourable position of raising this on motions today. Would he now tell us when the contract definition phase will end?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the time that is foreseen in terms of the contract definition phase is approximately 15 months. There will be a period of six months required for the negotiation of the contract with the two successful bidders who will be participating in that phase. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that I am very optimistic that the program will be completed and that the first ship will be delivered in 1987 as initially planned.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the first ship was to be delivered in 1986, not 1987.
As Cantec, or Vickers Canada, as it is also known, has been dropped again from the short list, could the minister explain why it has been put on the list after it had been dropped by the Conservative government? This means that it has been dropped once, put on again and then off again. This has resulted in a delay of one year. Can the minister tel! us why, in going through the list, he went through this rather fruitless exercise during the past nine months of putting them back on, only to drop them again, unless it was so the department could stretch the program out and find some money for it?


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, I do not recall the previous government having announced any successful bidders. I recall that there was a short list of three which had been identified, but the hon. gentleman was minister of national defence at that time and he is privy to what occurred in those days. However, I do not recall any official statement to that effect. He will recall that in March, after we came into office, we included in the Speech from the Throne a provision which indicated that we would use the procurement dollars in order to maximize Canadian content. As a result, of course, in June of 1980 we requested the participants on the short list to attempt to repair their bids in order to maximize their own offer so as to ensure an increased Canadianization of the contracts and the contract definition stage. In my humble estimation, we were successful in doing that.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, may I preface my remarks by saying that that is a bunch of nonsense and the minister knows it.
May 1 ask the Minister of Supply and Services, through you, Madam Speaker, a question based on one put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services last Friday. The Leader of the Opposition asked, as
Oral Questions
reported at page 5402 of Hansard, in reference to the CF-18A program and reports emanating from the United States about the review of that program-
-whether the official view of the Government of Canada is that the arrangement can be renegotiated?
I put that question to the Minister of Supply and Services given the seriousness of the reports emanating from the United States.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat concerned about the negative attitude which the hon. gentleman took with regard to the announcement on the frigate program. I thought that he would have been the first one to recognize that this announcement will be very helpful to the shipbuilding industry in Canada, a large portion of its activities being in the hon. gentleman's region.
Having said that, 1 would indicate that in terms of the CF-18 contract there is no need to renegotiate nor any intention to do so. I might point out to the hon. gentleman that he might want to get a copy of that contract from the hon. member for Victoria, in which he will see that that contract as negotiated at present is one of the better opportunities we have had in terms of military procurement in the recent past.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Supply and Services was whether or not the minister believes that that contract can be renegotiated. Will the minister respond to that question? With respect to the frigate program, the government has been procrastinating and delaying ad nauseam. With respect to the CF-18 program, can the minister respond whether he can renegotiate that contract?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the reply which I gave to the hon. member for Victoria was justification for requesting the three short list competitors to repair their bid to maximize Canadian content. We are dealing here with a technology, a weapons system, which we want to be the state of the art once production is secured. I would urge the hon. gentleman to offer us every possible assistance in order to achieve that.
In terms of the CF-18 program, as I pointed out to the hon. gentleman, there is no need to renegotiate it. We are satisfied that the contract is a very good one, that the delivery dates will be met, and that the target prices which have been determined in the contract will be satisfied.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, if I may. I know the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that the auto industry accounts for close to 17 per cent of the employment opportunities in the province of Ontario and that its future

December 8, 1980
Oral Questions
depends to a great extent on consumer confidence and demand. The recent high interest rates have undermined that confidence and contributed significantly to the quite unacceptable unemployment levels in that industry and in other related industries.
Can the Prime Minister say whether or not his government has in mind policies which can guarantee that the almost 20,000 people who are unemployed in the Windsor area, and others unemployed across the province, will return to work some time within the next three months? Second, would the Prime Minister consider, as leader of the federal government, initiating meetings with the various provinces, with the banks and with the industry involved, in an effort to establish a joint program which would stimulate consumer demand, such as perhaps sales tax cuts, interest rate rebates or industry rebates to consumers of automobiles, in order that we can attempt to get that industry back on its feet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this is obviously a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who, unfortunately, is ill either in the hospital or at home. I will be glad to make note of the question on his behalf. With regard to consumer demand, I would point out to the hon. member that the statistics revealed today by Statistics Canada indicate that in the third quarter there has been a rise in consumer demand-


An hon. Member:: You are using statistics now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker. There has been a rise in consumer demand-


An hon. Member:: What is the price of butter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and we just hope that this is the beginning of a recovery which will last.


ASSISTANCE TO WORKERS IN WINDSOR AREA
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and immigration. Given that the Prime Minister has not been able, as yet at least, to give some assurance that the programs which are in place, or for that matter any programs which may be put in place, will guarantee the return to work of the workers in the Windsor area and across the province, can the minister indicate why until this time there has been no TAB program brought in by this government, why until this time the government has gone from the shorter waiting period for workers in Windsor to the normal waiting period, and why there is no supplemental benefit program available to those workers in view of the fact there is no hope that they will return to work immediately, given that they still have to pay their bills, and also given that we hope they will remain in the Windsor area so that they can some day return to work in the auto industry and produce automobiles for people here in Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that at present well over 95 per cent to 96 per cent of the workers laid off in the auto industry in the Windsor area are totally covered by unemployment insurance and that most of those workers whose premiums or benefits have run out will immediately be able to qualify for the re-engagement of those benefits.
Second, within the budget announcement made by the Minister of Finance, he put forward the proposal for a $350 million adjustment program which will both stimulate the economy in areas where industries are declining as well as provide additional benefits to workers. Those programs are now being developed in consultation with business and the unions. We hope to make an announcement very shortly on the results of those discussions.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the exchange which took place at the beginning of the question period between himself and the Leader of the NDP. As there is nothing sadder than a beautiful relationship which ceases to exist, would the Prime Minister tell us when it was that the love affair between the government and the NDP ended; and does he see any chance of reconciliation in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there is nothing like a father figure to help that come about, and I rely on the hon. member to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. According to press reports, a leaked government study indicated that there are high levels of dioxin in Ontario-raised chickens. Can the parliamentary secretary comment on the truth or otherwise of these reports and the possible source of the dioxin, in the event the reports are true?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Niagara Falls, in November 1979 the department found the presence of dioxin in chicken livers. It took that opportunity to inform its provincial counterparts. As a result of that a special federal-provincial task force was set up to investigate the use of pentachloro-
December 8, 1980

phenol, which is apparently used in the treatment of wood. The wood chips are purchased by farmers to be used as bedding in chicken operations; apparently this is the source of the dioxin.
As a result of this special task force, recommendations are now being made and are being studied. As well, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture are conducting further tests on the effects of dioxin on meat and poultry. At the same time we have asked the chemical industry to investigate the possibility of using some chemical other than pentachlorophenol in the treatment of wood. With those recommendations in mind, we hope to have some solution to the problem.


PRIVILEGE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise for a moment on a question of personal privilege. It was drawn to my attention just a short while ago that there is a story in today's edition of the Ottawa Citizen concerning the manner in which we as House leaders eluded the press the last time we held a meeting. I do not object to that part of the story, but there are some things which should be kept correct. The story refers to me as "a 68-year old
Order Paper Questions
veteran MP". Not only was the press unable to keep up with us, but that writer is four years behind. I am 72.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 308, 1,215 and 1,735.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does Treasury Board circular number 1979-20 dated July 27, 1979, state " .. . a project manager shall be appointed for each project which may require contract or project approval by the Treasury Board."?
2.	How many such project managers, by province of location of contract, have been appointed since the issuance of the circular?


David Michael Collenette: 1. Yes.
Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que	. Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta	B.C. N.W.T. YukonAgriculture Canada Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada	1 1	4 1	2	2Canada Employment & Immigration Commission	2 1 1 V^_	1 	J	Energy, Mines and Resources	i i	V 1	1	(One, location of project-Quebec and Ontario)	Environment Canada	12 2 2 9	18	1	13	7 1External Affairs	(Thirteen project managers have been	appointed to administer the 25 projects initiated by the bureau	of physical resources. The projects initiated by the bureau are	for contract activities outside of	Canada).	Canadian International Development Agency	3 21	19	3	1	4	5Fisheries and Oceans	4 2 2	1	3Indian Affairs and Northern Development	2 13 8	55	8	13	8	8 2 5Industry, Trade and Commerce	8	Metric Commission Canada	2	
National Defence National Health and Welfare
(One, director, special projects team, located in the national capital region. The project in question covers the decentralization of Canada Pension Plan claims and benefits processing operations, to eight provincial capitals (excluding Ontario and Quebec).
Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que.	Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. N.W.T. Yukon
National Library National Research Council	1 The NRC has named from within NRC, 37 project managers for 79 contracts distributed as follows:		
Nfld.	1 Man.	2N.S.	1 Sask.	1P.E.I.	1 Alta.	4Que	10 B.C.	5Ont	52 Other Countries	2
Order Paper Questions

December 8, 1980
Public Service Commission Public Works Canada Regional Economic Expansion Solicitor General Correctional Service of Canada Royal Canadian Mounted Police Supply and Services Transport Canada Veterans Affairs
Other Departments and Agencies
N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont. 2	Man. Sask. Alta	B.C. N.W.T. Yukon2	2	11	22	3	2
(One project manager for all prairie farm rehabilitation administration).
32
(One location of project-all provinces except Quebec)
31218	43	91142
1 1
None.


Mr. Cossitt: L Was the 1979 Annual Report of the Export Development Corporation published and, if so (a) how many copies were printed (b) was it printed by the Department of Supply and Services and (i) if so, what was the total cost (ii) if not, who printed it and at what cost?
2.	Was the unit cost approximately $4.87 and (a) if so, is the government aware that figures compiled by a Toronto business authority in January 1980, declared the unit costs of the average private corporations' annual report was $1.50 to $2.00 per unit and, if so, in what way was the difference accounted for (b) if not, what was it?
3.	Were tenders for the printing of the report (a) invited and, if so, what are the names of all those invited including the amount of their bid (b) called for by advertisement and, if so, what are the names of all those who responded including the amount of their bid?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State, Trade):: In so far as
Export Development Corporation is concerned: 1. Yes.
(a)	32,000
(b)	No
(i)	N/A
(ii)	M.O.M. Printing-$127,555.32
2.	Yes.
(a) and (b) No; but the Annual Report of Export Development Corporation performs more functions than does the report of an average private corporation; it is designed for export development, to show potential markets to businessmen and to inform the business community of the financial facilities available for exporters. To that end a large number of copies are printed and widely distributed.
3.	(a) Tenders were invited from the following:
M.O.M. Printing,
300 Parkdale Avenue,
Ottawa, Ontario
National Printer (Ottawa) Ltd.,
1980 Merivale Road,
Ottawa, Ontario
Herzig Somerville Ltd.,
42 Hollinger Road,
Toronto, Ontario
The amount of the individual bid is information that is commercially confidential. The contract was awarded to the lowest bidder.
(b) N/A.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a $77,029 order for electron tubes with Denlen Electronics Corp. (International) Ltd. under contract number 6PX.2750190 and, if so, (b) in what location will the tubes be manufactured?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: (a) Yes. (b) San Carlos, California, USA.
It should be noted that these tubes are manufactured exclusively by Litton Industries in their plant at San Carlos, California and Denlen Electronics is the exclusive Canadian supplier of Litton tubes.
*


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 764 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of Transport and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
December 8, 1980


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 5, consideration in committee of Bill C-47, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-47, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981.
When the committee rose on Friday, December 5, Vote No. 1 under the Department of Employment and Immigration was under consideration, and the hon. member for Calgary West had the floor. The Chair has been informed there was an understanding between the parties, since the minister will be absent for the beginning of the debate, that the hon. member for Calgary West will forgo his turn to speak now, as long as he is recognized after the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION:
Vote No. I


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the parliamentary Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s, 1 should like to report briefly to the House, to the minister and his officials what the task force has been doing since its appointment last June and what has been told to us about employment problems in the country. Obviously, in making this informal report to the House 1 am not speaking on behalf of the special committee. What 1 will be saying very often will be opinions which have been told to us and on which we have not yet made a decision or recommendation.
As hon. members know, the special Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s was established by Parliament on May 23, 1980, and its membership was appointed on June
4.	There are seven members on the task force, four from the government and three from the opposition. The three members from the opposition include the chief critics of the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party. These seven members are very well distributed among the regions of the coun-
Supply
try, with two from the west, two from Ontario, two from Quebec, and one from the Atlantic region.
In setting up a task force of members of Parliament on these problems, it was hoped that we would have a different approach to these problems than many of the task forces, commissions and study groups established internally by ministers over the years. As I see it, one of the great advantages of a task force of members of Parliament is that once they make their report to Parliament and to the government, the members will still be in the House putting questions to the minister with respect to its implementation.
As hon. members know, when other task forces are established of experts and academics from outside, they are dispersed once they have made their reports and cannot follow up in the same manner as members of Parliament.
The mandate of the task force, in a nutshell, was to examine the situation in Canada where, on the one hand, we have unacceptable high levels of unemployment, and on the other hand, growing critical shortages of skill trades, critical skill shortages both in the blue collar and white collar areas. In examining that problem we are making a critical analysis of our manpower policies, our training and retraining programs, and our labour mobility programs.
We started our hearings within one week of our appointment, and during the months of June and July we heard many of the national associations and groups here in Ottawa: the Canadian Labour Congress, the Economic Council of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and so on.
During the month of August and early September members of the task force met privately with provincial governments with respect to these problems. As members know, this is a field which is jointly shared between the federal and provincial governments and, consequently, we felt it extremely important to consult with the provincial governments in order to let them know that we do not intend to tread into their jurisdiction but that we felt we wanted to explore the area completely. Those meetings with the provinces are completed, except for the province of Quebec, with which we have not yet been able to set a date.
The committee then undertook its travels on the road. Up until this point we have had hearings in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and in the Jonquiere-Lac St. Jean area of Quebec. We were obliged to suspend the balance of our hearings scheduled for Quebec and Ontario because of the early recall of Parliament and the fact that there were so many other important matters taking place here, such as the budget, the energy policy announcement and the constitutional proposals. So, from the point of the recall of Parliament, we have been holding meetings here in Ottawa and we have been receiving many views.
I want to say something about the views, suggestions, recommendations and criticisms which have been coming to us via the various groups, and individuals who have appeared

December 8, 1980
Supply
before us. To begin with, 1 wish to confirm in a most emphatic way that all witnesses felt we are in the midst of serious critical shortages with respect to skilled workers. These shortages will become worse leading up to 1985. Many people feel if important steps are not taken this year and next to turn around what is taking place, we will seriously impair the productive capacity of the industrial and service sector of this country. As a matter of fact, some witnesses have already reported to us that they have had to refuse orders and that they have had to withhold expansion. Some employers have had to close down wings of their plants or their businesses because they cannot find the skilled workers required to do the work which is necessary. Several reasons have been given for these serious, critical, skill shortages.
In a time when there is relatively high unemployment, some of the reasons given are the following. It has been pointed out to us time and again that whereas in the 1960s and 1970s we were dealing with the baby boom of the 1950s, we are now, in the 1980s, beginning to feel the results of the serious curtailment in the birth rate which started in about 1960. And, whereas we had large numbers of people coming into the labour market in the 1970s, it is pointed out that this will gradually decline as we go into the 1980s and the shortages will become more acute.
Second, the terrible record Canadian employers have, both in the industrial and other sectors, in training their own workers, has been mentioned to us time and again. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in a refreshing brief put before us, were very critical of their own members in pointing out that less than 20 per cent of the members of that association actually did any training on the job for skilled workers required by their own companies. They said this was a deplorable situation and must be turned around as quickly as possible.
The reason many of these companies have not done the training in the past, in Canada, is because it was much cheaper for them to go to western Europe or the United States to obtain skilled workers trained in those countries. The situation now is that those countries, the countries of western Europe, those in the common market as well as those which are not in the common market, and the United States, are also faced with a declining birth rate. Also, they are fortunate enough to have very improved conditions in those countries so that it is now extremely difficult for Canadian employers to get the kind of skilled worker they got in the past from those countries.
The last reason which has been given to us deals with the rather negative attitudes which have developed in this country since the Second World War with respect to blue collar work. These are attitudes which have been expressed in a way that almost any kind of white collar work is superior to blue collar work, and that blue collar work is in some sense dirty work whereas white collar work is clean work. This has resulted in many parents encouraging their children to take jobs as clerks in offices rather than to take up some apprenticeship or skilled trade, which very often is much more necessary to society, is
honourable, and which we need if we are to produce the goods and services in this country to meet our market commitments.
Those are four of the reasons which have been given: the declining birth rate, the inability to attract immigrants as we have in the past-especially trained immigrants, the lack of training programs in our own industries, and negative attitudes.
Where are these critical shortages developing? To give some examples, companies, employers and unions have told us that the critical shortages are developing with respect to machinists, welders, tool and die makers, electronics technicians, computer technicians, communications technicians, engineers of all kinds, people who can do financial analyses, accountants, actuaries, personnel in the medical and para-medical field, nurses, psychiatric nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists, and so on. These are the types of trades and professions which are being affected by these serious shortages.
In Saint John, New Brunswick, it was reported to us that a wing of the Saint John General Hospital had to be closed due to a shortage of nurses. In Halifax the administrator of a large hospital told us that they had recently acquired very complex electronic equipment to be used in the hospital but that they could not find anyone to maintain and repair that equipment. Not only could they not find somebody in Halifax, or in Nova Scotia, but they could find no one in Canada to maintain and repair that equipment. They had to go to Chicago, Illinois, in order to find somebody to do the job. And this is in a province where there are high levels of unemployment.
Another striking example was pointed out to us when we held our hearings in Sydney, Nova Scotia. A relatively young man told us he had come to Cape Breton from Massachusetts because he found in Nova Scotia fishing boats were becoming highly computerized yet there was no one in Nova Scotia, or relatively no one, with the skills to do the maintenance or repair on the mini-computers and electronic systems on those fishing boats. Here is an American who comes to Canada, sets up a business to carry out this type of work, and who is now beginning to train young Canadians in the Cape Breton area to do this maintenance and repair work on fishing boats.
We have been told time and again that these shortages are bad enough now but will become worse unless something extremely positive is done. This is something which is accentuated even further by the megaprojects which are scheduled to come on-line shortly-the oil sands projects, the pipe lines, the offshore developments for energy in the Atlantic and Arctic regions and the superports which are planned. These mega projects will take up much of our skilled manpower, both in the blue collar and white collar fields, such as the engineers, welders, tool and die makers, and so on. They will be taken up from the entire country and brought to Alberta, or wherever the major megaprojects will take place, bidding up the salaries with strong inflationary pressure, and leaving shortages in many other parts of the country which just cannot bid in competition for salaries with those projects. Those are the existing problems and the anticipated ones.
December 8, 1980

What are the suggested solutions? There has been much criticism of our forecasting system, particularly the forecasting which is necessary to plan training programs and for setting in place proper counselling programs in the high schools, technicals schools, vocational schools and so on. Many witnesses felt that the statistical information which is being used throughout the country is based to far too great an extent on a macroanalysis system and that it does not take into account important regional problems. It has also been felt that the people of Statistics Canada who collected the information which is necessary for the labour market analysis have not been as sensitive as they could be to the phrasing or formulation of questions used to collect that information.
For example, while speaking to a representative of one of the governments in the Atlantic area, it was pointed out that a Statistics Canada questionnaire for industries in Altantic Canada had a question to the effect, "how many part-time workers do you employ?" And there were other questions related to that question. Since tourism is an important industry to that particular province, the ministers and the officials concerned telephoned Statistics Canada in Ottawa for the information on that questionnaire. Statistics Canada officials said that they could not provide that information because, although the questions had been asked and the industries had sent in answers, they decided that it was not necessary to put the data into the computer to make the information available. Of course the provincial officials were upset because this was the sort of information which would have been very useful to them for labour market analysis within the province.
So we have received criticism and recommendations on the statistical information which is being provided, particularly that it should be more appropriate to the regional problems, whether it be northeastern New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Labrador, the Gaspe, northern Ontario and so on, and that the information is not detailed enough to solve the problems of these regions. In order to phase in the courses required by industry and to provide the kind of trained labour force necessary and phase out those courses which are no longer required, this statistical information is necessary for such planning and to provide counselling to young people.
Other recommendations have been to the effect that therb should be much more on-the-job training and that, if possible, it should be tied into some kind of co-operative educational system. Many employers were very positive with respect to the kinds of programs found at the University of Waterloo, the University of Sherbrooke and Ryerson Tech in which the students spend so much of their time in the institution and so much of their time in the work place. When these students graduate with a degree or a diploma, they have logged many practical hours in the workplace, which is of much benefit to the employer. I understand that the minister and the government over the past few years have been moving in this direction. All I can say is that the recommendations have been that we should move even quicker and further in that direction.
Supply
Another recommendation is that we amend our policies, laws and programs to allow to a much greater extent than is presently the case shared-work programs so that firms may keep on skilled workers after the age of 65. For example, one individual might work two or three days a week and another individual the remaining two or three days. In this way two senior citizen workers could come in on a reduced schedule and perform a job which cannot be performed by a younger person simply because no young person with the skills can be found.
I forget the exact figures, but one of the shocking revelations is that a very high percentage of the present skilled blue collar workers in Canada are well over 45 years of age and that there are very few young people coming in to replace these people. Many firms would like to keep their skilled blue collar workers after the age of 65 on a reduced work schedule, but this is not always possible today because of the laws, regulations, collective agreements and so on.
Another shared-work program suggestion which the committee received was that better use could be made of married women who, very often, have been trained to do jobs but have been forced to leave the work force for a number of years to bring up children. The suggestion was that in order to take advantage of these women who have the skills, the system be changed so that they could come in at least two or three days a week, which would contribute to the Canadian economy while at the same time allowing these people to take care of their families at home.
With respect to the young, it was suggested that we facilitate to a greater extent than is presently the case co-operative education programs so that young people may move in and out of the educational institution and the work force. There were also many recommendations received with respect to certain minorities or disadvantaged people. It seems to us that not only does justice demand it but the economic situation requires that we make much greater use of our women, our native people and our handicapped.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


William Warren Allmand: I wonder if I might have a few minutes to complete my remarks.


Denis Éthier: That can only be done with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I will bring my remarks to a close in a very few minutes. As I was saying, with respect to those groups it was felt that we must make a much greater effort to utilize women in non-traditional work, train our native people so that they can do the skilled jobs required, and that we must use our handicapped people who are often very capable of doing skilled work. It was pointed out that not only does justice demand
5456

December 8, 1980
Supply
that this be done but the economic situation requires it. If this country is to reach the production capacity of which it is capable, we must use our potential workers, regardless of their sex, background or handicap.
Many Canadians in the outer regions of the country, in such areas as Atlantic Canada, the west and the northern parts of our central provinces, have suggested that there be much more flexibility in the manpower retraining programs and the mobility programs which are now in use. They feel that many of the rules which have been put in place are based on a statistical analysis which more properly reflects southern Ontario or the major urban centres of this country and that very often those policies do very little to correct the situation in Cape Breton, Gaspe, northern Ontario and other such areas.
It is obvious that something is wrong with our system. Considering the rate of unemployment in this country and the growing critical shortages in the labour force, there must be something wrong with our manpower retraining policies, because they do not recycle all those unemployed people who want to work and who want to learn skills and trades. These people should be retrained and put into these openings which are becoming more numerous.
In conclusion, the task force has obtained agreement with all parties as to the date on which its work will continue. It was impossible to deal with the complex subjects in the short time which was allocated. We will be continuing our work into the late spring, after which there will be a final report. In the meantime we will try to put out an interim report which, I hope, will help the minister in formulating new policies and correcting some of the problems to which I have referred in my remarks today.


Mr. Hawkes:: As the minister was absent during the excellent presentation made by my colleague across the floor, I hope he will read it in Hansard. 1 think we have discovered a lot of information through that task force and I am glad that some of it, at least, is on public record.
On Friday last, in the five minutes allocated to me, I asked the minister a series of questions. I should like to begin with those questions today as he has had the weekend to search out the information.
Could the minister tell us how many person-years of employment will be created by the construction of a single tar sands plant?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, before answering the hon. member for Calgary West I would like to assure him and the chairman of the parliamentary task force that not only will I read the Hansard report but I look forward with a great deal of anticipation to their presentation. I am sure it will reflect the wisdom and experience of the members-perhaps with some exceptions. I know the chairman has spent a great deal of time in this area. We look forward very much to the findings of this committee.
In response to the question of the hon. member for Calgary West, 1 would point out to him that each tar sands project has its own characteristics, depending on its size and nature. There is no standard tar sands project; each had different investments and different types of appropriation. I could provide the guesstimate figures that the oil companies have provided, and which our regional offices have provided. Perhaps the most illustrative example would be the Syncrude plant which used approximately 19,720 person-years during construction over a seven-year period and now has an operative complement of approximately 4,000 people.
The projection for the Alsands tar sands project calls for approximately 300 person-years in 1980; 300 in 1981; 1,200 in 1982; 3,395 in 1983; 6,308 in 1984; 6,673 in 1985 and 3,577 in 1986, for an approximate total of 21,757 person-years during the construction phase of the project. We estimate that the operating phase will require about 2,800 people for each of those areas.
The Cold Lake project which is presently being considered calls for 500 construction person-years in 1980; 677 in 1981; 2,091 in 1982; 4,771 in 1983; 7,679 in 1984; 7,552 in 1985; 4,796 in 1986, and 2,910 in 1987, for a total of 30,076 person-years in construction. The operation of that plant will require something approximating 2,600 person-years after it is completed.
As the hon. member knows, the decision on the progress of the tar sands plants is being held up by the Premier of Alberta for, as the Prime Minister said during question period, reasons known only to himself. The hon. member knows that we have put forward a very clear offer to provide the pricing asked for by the oil companies of $38 per barrel. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made that offer in early fall, so we have responded to the demands of the oil companies for a price commensurate with the actual cost of recovery in the tar sands. The Premier of Alberta thus far has refused to grant permits to those projects. As I have mentioned to the hon. member previously, I hope he will use his good offices as a member of the Conservative party of Alberta to persuade the Premier of Alberta otherwise, so that these very necessary projects can go ahead.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, the minister continues to amaze me. As a minister from the west he should understand clearly that even the federal price offer on the tar sands makes those projects non-viable economically. I agree that the Premier of Alberta has indicated clearly that in the absence of a sane and sensible oil policy for this country, he is not prepared to deal with one small portion of that sane and sensible policy, but instead will do his best to teach the federal government what are the requirements of a sane and sensible policy which might lead us to self-sufficiency.
Let me return to the question of person-years of employment created in relation to those plants. Could the minister indicate whether his figures include the person-years of employment for the infrastructure-the city that is required to go with each of those plants? If not, could he give us some estimate of the person-years involved in construction of the cities that relate to the plants?
December 8, 1980


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member asked his questions on Friday, he neglected to include that request. We cannot, therefore, provide those detailed figures. I will make every effort to find those figures for him, but because this is the only day left for consideration of these estimates, I am afraid we will have to communicate with him by letter, unless we can find the figures. He will recognize it will require some degree of pretty gross estimating. We do not know exactly what the necessary size would be. We could transpose from the developments in Fort McMurray, I presume, but we will attempt to get those figures and provide them to him.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that with 25,000 employees we might have those figures later today. It might just take a phone call from one of the officials that I notice in the gallery and on the floor.
I asked the minister a question about person-years of employment created throughout the life cycle of a plant, assuming a 25-year life cycle. The minister will recognize that the figures he has given to this point are related specifically to the building of the plant and the operation of it, but do not include the multiplier effect.
For instance, if we were to build a home with all the rooms that normally go in it, we would include the person-years required to erect that building but not the person-years generated in the plants that make the bathroom fixtures, the rugs, and so on. Could the minister indicate what his officials use as a multiplier in terms of the construction? It would be some figure within three to four times as many jobs, I presume, being created in a multiplier sense as opposed to the direct sense. Could the minister tell us what figures his department uses?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will recognize that he is now very slowly moving into the arcane world of black magic forecasting for which economists are well known, and the inaccuracies of which are well recognized. I would not want to mislead the House by giving figures which suggest a multiplication that is not true. The average multiplier often used by economists is in the area of three to five, but at this point there is no accurate multiplier factor for jobs created in the tar sands plants other than those which we could track down once they are in place, and use as examples. The Syncrude plant is the first major tar sands operation, and it would take some time to gain the experience and the evidence to give a sound data base on which accurate figures can be based.
I will ascertain from my officials whether there is a multiplier with which they would feel reasonably comfortable. I want to say that I would find that a fairly dangerous practice to use, in the present imperfect art that is economic forecasting in this country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, just using the bottom end of that arcane black magic determination for which, as a taxpayer, I know I contribute tremendous sums of money to the federal government, I am a little disappointed that the minister chooses not to share those numbers with us. Using the bottom number just on the construction phase alone, we are
Supply
looking at better than 120,000 person-years of employment and using the upper number we are looking at 180,000 person-years of employment. That is for one plant alone. Given his knowledge of the labour force in Canada, could the minister tell us how many of those plants could proceed during the same time space without us getting into severe skilled manpower shortages?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 raised that very same question about six weeks ago when I met with representatives of the oil companies who were engaged in the development and planning of the tar sands area. Quite frankly, they do not know, either. As we all know, one of the weaknesses in the country thus far has been effective planning of human resources in our major resource field. There has been great reluctance on the part of industry to combine efforts so as to come up with joint forecasting, joint planning and development of skill requirements. Industry has been relying on an ad hoc, piecemeal, company-by-company formula, and no efforts have been made to combine them on an industry-wide basis.
During the time of the advisory council meetings in Calgary, which I believe were held in October, we had a large-scale meeting with representatives of oil companies in an attempt to convince them that it may be important to proceed with a closer arrangement of planning. However, one of the impediments is the action by the province of Alberta which cancelled agreements of the manpower consultative and planning committee, something we normally have with each of the provinces. We endeavour to sit down and set up planning and consultative committees with provincial governments, industry, and the federal government. But I believe the province of Alberta withdrew from that about a year or so ago, perhaps a little bit longer than that, so we have not had the participation of the province in those areas.
They have voiced their reluctance from time to time to have companies deal directly with the federal government. This is something I deeply regret because I think the problem is much bigger than any one government's position or policy, or any one industry's. Rather, it is necessary for us to begin to combine our efforts to come to some agreement. But until we are able to get all the parties to agree that it is necessary, it will be very difficult to make those forecasts and to try to co-ordinate the efforts of the companies so they can space out their planning on a sequential basis so there is no overheating of the economy or a squeeze on manpower requirements. We suggested at that meeting that if all the projects converged at the same time, there would be a very short and intense pressure placed upon labour requirements in certain key fields, for example, pipefitting, machinery, engineering and what not.
Because the oil and gas industry is a high paying industry we suggested they could draw sufficient numbers of people from other industries within the province of Alberta, western Canada, and from other parts of the country. What it would do though is create a second order of deficiencies. Industries which cannot compete with them on the same price scale will be forced into severe shortages which would affect productivity.

December 8, 1980
Supply
It is the old story of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The oil and gas megaprojects could probably go ahead, but other industries which require the same kinds of skills and workers would suffer increasingly. That is why I suggested in my opening remarks that it would be very important for us to develop the kind of training and apprenticeship programs which would draw people from other walks of life who are presently not having the same advantages into those training areas. That is why we have to develop not just an industry or a sector approach, but we have to develop a national employment training strategy so there will not be those sort of shock effects when one draws people from one industry to another, which creates tremendous gravitational pulls from another industrial sector. Therefore, it is important that we begin to put together the building blocks of a national employment training scheme. We are trying to do that through the operations of the committee of this Parliament, the operations of our own committee, and through discussions with the provinces next year when we renegotiate the occupational training act.


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Calgary West.
I must remind him that he has only one minute left.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, in a recent speech the minister said that finding solutions will not be made easier if we follow what he thinks is a recently established Canadian pattern of finger pointing and buck passing. He said we seem to have developed a knack of solving our problems by blaming them on each other.
I suggest to the minister that the forecasts of manpower needs in the province of Alberta are of pretty good quality. They are available to the federal government. The reason they are of good quality is that we tend to work together with the employees, the employers, and the government of the province. This is done in an atmosphere of mutual trust and co-operation. We do not treat each other as the enemy. I suggest the consequence of that is a more productive system, and a system in which it is possible to plan because employers choose to give accurate rather than inaccurate information. There may be a message for the minister in that process. 1 look forward to further discussion on other issues as the day progresses.


Mr. Lapointe (Beauce):: Mr. Chairman, I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate which will enable me to describe briefly the federal policy instruments which were used to promote job creation in my constituency. 1 shall conclude by asking a few questions of the minister on specific subjects. For a decade several job-creation initiatives have been introduced in each constituency through the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Many of those projects attracted several participants and raised much interest, particularly because of their numerous effects on the socioeconomic life of our constituents. The first objective of the various programs which were established was, as we know, to create employment and to improve living conditions in the community.
Mr. Chairman, the people in Beauce supported those various programs with enthusiasm, particularly if we consider the number of applications I received for the new community development program this year. Seventy-five groups filed an application to have their projects approved, and some of them are very innovative. That enthusiasm is typical of the business mentality in Beauce where hundreds of diversified industries normally depend on local financing and manpower. It did not surprise me; indeed, the contrary would have. It gave me the opportunity of realizing how much imagination and creativity some of those people have. Unfortunately, the consultative committee and myself had to turn down almost half the applications because of budget restrictions. Indeed, out of 75 projects only 36 were accepted after a careful examination aimed at selecting those projects that were most representative of the criteria set down by the department.
The government injected $600,000 in my riding through that program. 1 should like to ask the minister if he still expects the budget earmarked for the ridings to be increased in order to meet more adequately the many requests we receive each year from our ridings; over $2 million is needed as I have received requests for over that amount in my riding alone. 1 am very much aware that it may be very difficult for the minister to grant such an amount, but might it not be possible to increase the amount of $600,000 to $1 million, for instance, and spread the projects over a slightly longer period? This would result in an even better performance and even more encouraging results.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his comments about the effectiveness of the program in his area. We introduced that program for the very reasons he has put forward, namely, to concentrate our scarce financial resources in the areas where the need is greatest. I regret that we were not able to supply all the money which would put the people in the Beauce region to work. We were working with a set of estimates prepared by the previous government. As a result, we were required to provide for some reallocation of those moneys in order to re-introduce a job-creation program.
The previous government cancelled the direct job-creation program, so there would have been no money available at all. We had to work within very finite limits. Since the introduction of the program we now see what a strong demand there is. I intend to continue discussing this with my colleagues in cabinet to see if there are funds available which could be reallocated, and we would make every effort to put them back into those work projects. That is a discussion that is ongoing.
1 hope we will be able to provide some answers to the hon. member and other hon. members in very short order to see if we can do some further reallocation to provide further work opportunities. As I pointed out, this is a transition period. We are trying to do a thorough re-evaluation of our employment programs to get more effective use, and to target where the needs are greatest. I welcome very much the comments of the
December 8, 1980

hon. member. It gives us a better set of information to work on in his region.
[ Translation]


Normand Lapointe: i thank the minister, Mr. Chairman. Still, in terms of jobs in my riding this year, the department will have created 125 jobs thanks to this new program, to be added to the other 800 created since 1977 under the Canada Works program. The student program gave rise to some controversy this year in my riding with regard to the geographic distribution of the projects, but in my opinion the criticisms were groundless, since 1 could not answer all applications received because of lack of money. On the other hand, the Young Canada Works program created some 425 jobs and injected $675,000 over the last four years. That program helped young people representing about 27 per cent of the labour force and almost 45 per cent of the total number of unemployed getting a job which gave them a good experience while benefiting the community.
I used these programs as examples to demonstrate that the federal government has helped the unemployment situation in Beauce where the participation rate increased from 55.8 per cent in 1975 to 58.4 per cent in 1979. The ratio between the labour force and the corresponding population aged 15 and over has risen from 51.5 per cent to 53.2 per cent. Although the levels of these two percentages are not as high as the corresponding figures for the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole, their rates of growth are superior. As a matter of fact, the participation rate for the economic region of Quebec went up by 2.6 per cent, compared with 1.4 per cent and 1.5 per cent for the province of Quebec and Canada respectively. The total creation of these jobs through various employment and immigration programs has helped lower the unemployment level during certain periods. In spite of adverse economic circumstances, the Beauce region has maintained its unemployment rate at a lower level than the averages for Quebec and Canada. To a certain extent this has been made possible in part thanks to another federal department, namely, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which has invested in the riding more than $18.5 million and created some 3,850 new jobs since its establishment in 1969. There are a few figures. In the town of St. Georges in Beauce alone, some 1,300 jobs have been created and that is significant. However, the problem of unemployment is still too acute, especially when there is a shortage of manpower in some specialized trades. I agree with the spokesmen for the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s who suggested that we should emphasize training and manpower mobility schemes. In that connection, 1 would like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the members of his task force for their contribution to that effort to set up a coherent employment strategy for the eighties.
This is where the importance of consultation is evident. I entirely agree that each employment centre should set up a
Supply
committee on manpower requirements which would be made up of people from all trades who could advisedly make some suggestions on courses which could be given to workers who are prepared to retrain in forefront areas where many jobs are available. I am therefore happy to see that the government has added an additional $10 million to the critical trades, skills and training program. I also want to draw attention to other departmental programs which truly satisfy the needs of my constituents, especially the technology employment program which will provide the small and medium-sized businesses in my ridings with the funds necessary to hire students with specialized training and to subsidize their salaries.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate to the minister that there is an urgent need in the second largest city of my riding, namely, Ste. Marie and its area, to have an unemployment insurance office independent from the one in St. Georges. Ste. Marie is an important centre in Beauce. The population is certainly large enough to support such an office. The people must now travel approximately 85 kilometres to get to the nearest office, which, 1 am sure you will agree, is a fair distance.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the last point made by the hon. member on services provided regarding Ste. Marie or St. Georges, and indicate to him that officials of the Quebec region are looking into that question to see to what degree additional services may be necessary based upon the clientele. I will report to him as soon as I have that information.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, it is a delight to be back. To begin, could I ask the minister how many jobs have been created in the Canadian economy in the first ten months of this year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I believe the number is
277.000.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The minister's answer is very similar to the one he gave in the House on Friday, when the blues recorded that he said 270,000. But Friday's printed Hansard has the figure of 170,000. Could the minister tell me what happened between the printing of the blues and the final version of Hansard?


Lloyd Axworthy: I have no idea. We will check with the Hansard office, but my answer has been the same throughout,
277.000.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell us how many jobs were created in the nine months the Conservative government was in office?


Lloyd Axworthy: I will endeavour to look up the information. Because the record was so poor, we have not paid much attention to what they did exactly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, a million unemployed is a rather serious situation. In the seven months since the return

December 8, 1980
Supply
of the Liberal Government of Canada less than 200,000 jobs have been created. In fact, if you examine the labour force survey you will find there has been an average of a little more than 17,000 jobs a month created. In the previous nine months there were over 301,000 jobs created, and I think the minister will find that that is in excess of 30,000, in fact, in the neighbourhood of 33,000 jobs a month, which is almost double. Can the minister tell me of the jobs he claims have been created under his government, what proportion of those are in the public administration or in the public service sector?


Lloyd Axworthy: Before I answer the specific question raised by the hon. member, I think it would be important to point out to him some simple economic lessons about how the economy works. I am not trying to be presumptuous about it because I know he often reminds us of what a set of advanced degrees he has. To try to play a game of somehow saying that in nine months we can demarcate a period in which there was a major changeover does not take into account the economic reality that trends and patterns of the economy are affected very much by international conditions, the international flow of money in cash and the kind of industrial development that takes place. We know, for example, from our own history of the last 20 or 30 years that we are very susceptible to the economic decisions made in the United States in terms of purchasing power for exports, on which about 60 per cent of our economy depends.
Furthermore, I should like to point out that in the area of public policy and public stimulation there is a certain time lag. The initiatives taken, the tax changes and various kinds of incentives offered take a certain amount of time to take hold and one flows into the other. To claim somehow there was a period in 1979 when everything was magical, I would say that was probably directly a product of the previous Liberal decisions made in the budget of 1978.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: If the hon. member is here to compliment previous Liberal administrations, I am sure my colleagues who were here during that time will be glad to take those compliments willingly. The fact of the matter is we should not have to be involved in that kind of game. We must recognize that what a government does is respond to conditions both as it sees them and as it tries to counteract them. What we are trying to do is to live with a very difficult and very awesome economic situation.
May I point out to the hon. member that at the present time the employment growth in Canada is one of the highest in the industrialized world. We are still maintaining a phenomenal record of job creation. Contrary to the statement he made, we have created 270,000 jobs in the first ten months of this year, at a time when the United States has gone through a very severe recession and when a number of normal markets such as lumber and the automobile industry have been in serious decline. We have faced drop-offs in the area of automobile production because the market is not there, much of the market being demanded by the United States. Even within a
very difficult and very onerous economic period we are able still to maintain a high degree of economic growth.
May I point out there are even some bright spots on the horizon. For example, the job creation for women during that ten-month period has been higher than any other period- close to 5.5 per cent economic and employment growth for women during that period of time, which is much higher than the normal employment growth. The unemployment rate for women has dropped in the last ten months from a high of 7.8 per cent down to 6.6 per cent. Therefore, it shows there is a certain degree of promise in parts of the economy even though there are other parts which are heavily depressed.
As I pointed out in this House many times, and as my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has pointed out, we cannot totally and completely command the economy because we live basically in a private market economy. Most of the economic decisions are made by investors, corporations, and others. The government can only try to provide some direction and some guidelines within those areas. Certainly we cannot twist the economy according to our whims but must ride the currents which are, in many cases, caused outside our borders and within our borders. We have to develop an economic policy that tries to concentrate where the problems are most severe, as in the case of unemployment, areas wich face the greatest disadvantage. That is why we have adopted the kinds of policies targeted at high unemmployment regions and targeted at certain groups within the economy who face the greatest difficulty in getting jobs.
Much of the other kind of growth is a stimulant based primarily upon decisions made outside the government by others who are not really within our control and only respond to some of the signals we provide. I can attempt to give some of the breakdowns in the area of the actual labour market development.


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Calgary West rises on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I think the question I asked the minister was what proportion of the jobs he claims have been created, since they took office in March, were in the public administration sector. I wonder if I could just have that simple answer.


Lloyd Axworthy: The answer I will attempt to give is as follows: The employment growth in the primary goods producing area was 7.4 per cent during 1980; in secondary goods producing, 9.2 per cent; and the service producing contribution to average employment growth was 83 per cent. In these areas we have actual growth rates of 2.6, .9, and 3.3.


Denis Éthier: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I appreciate the free information but it has the incorrect base. I am asking about the period March to October which is the period in which the party opposite has been governing this country. He is giving me the total 1980 figures
December 8, 1980

which reflect not too badly because they include a period of the Conservative government. 1 would like him to restrict his answer to that period from March to October.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I tried to point out to the hon. member before that to make these sort of artificial demarcations at a point of an election and implying that all of a sudden the economy turns over, is absolutely ludicrous. I will attempt to get him a month-by-month breakdown regarding some of these figures. To say that these were Tory times and Liberal times is not the way the economy works. I would suggest that he go and get some small briefing on the fact that economic currents and trends flow through different months and different years. The advent of an election or no election is usually immaterial to those other than in the longer term when the government has the opportunity to change its policy, to change the direction to provide more stimulation. As we have pointed out in the budget presented by my colleague, we have now provided a more stimulative budget than that which was provided under the previous government and those returns will show up in the Canadian economy within the next nine to 18 months.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is economic theory from 100 years ago. We live in a modern age of communication, and I might suggest to the minister opposite that there is something called psychological confidence. There is either a belief that governments work together with industry, work together with entrepreneurs to create jobs, or there is a belief that the government is determined to put the private sector out of business. Those two psychological differences, I suggest, have a great deal more impact on the economy than the minister may in fact recognize.
If he is playing a political game with us, I am not worried, but if he honestly believes what he is saying, that the degree of trust which private sector people have in their government is not an important factor in their decisions to proceed to invest or in a young person's decision to go to school-if he honestly believes that faith in government is not important in that context-then 1 am more worried than I was when I began this day.
Let me just put on the public record the fact that since his government took office-and these statistics are in our labour force survey data-it has created less than 200,000 jobs, and about one-third of them are in the public administration sector. In our nine months in office we created approximately twice as many jobs per month, but only about 6,000 of that total of over 300,000 were in public administration, which is less than 2 per cent compared with 33 per cent to 35 per cent. Those figures are in the labour force survey, and they are irrefutable. I do not suggest and have not suggested that this was specifically because of economic policy because our budget was defeated, but I do suggest that the business community had psychological confidence that the Government of Canada cared about jobs and about economic development. I suggest that was a very important factor in the increase in job creation under our administration and is today a very
Supply
important concern which was accelerated on October 28 by the government opposite.
Can the minister tell us how many man-years, or person-years, of employment are created by one drilling rig in this country? The minister is from the west, and this is an important industry. We seem to have an economic policy which chases rigs out of the country. However, as a rig operates for a full year and searches for oil for us, how many jobs are created throughout the Canadian economy by the direct activity of one rig during one year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the answer depends on how deep the rig digs. I do not think we have to give a specific answer to that kind of question. I think the hon. member is simply toying at this point in time, but we will attempt to find the answer for him. We will consult the oil rig industry and find out the number of person-years involved. I would like to provide a small correction to the hon. member's terminology. It is person-years, not man-years, because we are now in an era of non-traditional work for women, and I think it would be helpful if the hon. member recognized that. However, we will attempt to obtain information in terms of person-years for the hon. member.
I would like to go back to this new economic theory about psychological confidence in the economy the hon. member has put forward for our consideration. This sounds something like a cross between psycho-cybernetics and Milton Friedman.


Mr. Evans:: Let's be careful.


Lloyd Axworthy: I apologize to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance whose tutelage, I gather, was under Professor Friedman. If the hon. member for Calgary West wants definitive proof of the psychology of things between one year and another, I point out to him that the actual registrations in our employment offices in Alberta are down this year from a year ago. In other words, more people registered for work considering that there was higher unemployment or higher demand for work a year ago than there is this year. By using the logic of the hon. member's argument, I suppose we would have to suggest that more people in Alberta are more confident with this government than they were with the previous government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, in the face of the considerable number of business decisions which are made in the province of Alberta and across the west-and I suggest across Canada-to take capital south, to Asia or to the North Sea, and in view of the number of those decisions which have been made in the last six months, accelerated by the events of October 28, it is difficult for me to sit on this side of the House and hear the minister repeat that business confidence is not important to economic development.
Let us leave that for a moment and ask the minister about the budgeted amount of $350 million which is to be split between the minister's and other departments of the federal government for industrial purposes in the next four years. This is a $350 million special development fund. Could the minister indicate to us what portion of that fund will be coming to his department and for what purposes?
5462	COMMONS DEBATES	December 8, 1980
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member would recognize, based upon budget discussions we felt it very important to respond in a variety of ways to the changes in the industrial composition of the country. I do not think those changes can be divided purely along departmental lines. It should be more along the lines of the kinds of activities and services we want to sponsor and promote. What we are presently doing is working in co-operation with several departments of government.
We are working with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Labour and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to come up with a package of proposals which would help industries which are going through major changes or shifts in production and help the workers in those industries who are facing adjustment problems to be able to respond to them. We are not trying at this time to divide the money along departmental lines, although once we get to the administration of it, it will be administered through certain departments. What we are far more concerned about is applying the $350 million to target industries and communities which are most directly affected by some form of industrial change. As I indicated in the House this afternoon, we are presently working to put that package forward. We hope to be able to have made decisions on it sometime within the next three or four weeks. Once the announcement is made, I am sure the hon. member will have an opportunity to ask questions in the House in order to get further details.
At the moment that matter is before cabinet, and besides indicating the general purpose and objective of that program I cannot go much further until the cabinet has finally decided on the program itself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I direct the minister's attention to publications from the Institute of Social Research in the United States and particularly Dr. George Katona. The minister may find those studies instructive in dealing effectively with the economy in the manner I have suggested.
I direct the minister's attention to his own statement on Friday afternoon at page 5415 of Hansard. As reported on that page the minister said:
-there has been a tendency by the private sector to rely almost exclusively on the import of skills from other countries.
In that same context he talked about his own program providing training spaces for 300,000 Canadians. I am wondering if the minister could give us the exact reference which enables him to conclude that the private sector in this country relies almost exclusively on the import of skills from other countries. What on earth led to that statement? What is the specific reference which gives the minister the data base on which to make the statement?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the nature of the hon. member's question because 1 believe he was in attendance at the Conference Board meetings about three weeks ago in Toronto at which this very topic was discussed. Private employers who were in attendance themselves conceded and admitted that that is exactly the kind of program they have been relying upon, the importation of skills. If the hon. member wants exact data, we will provide it for him in terms of showing the actual immigration levels under the independent classifications.
I will give the hon. member just one example. The Employers' Council of British Columbia published a study last summer-I will get the exact reference for the hon. member- which indicated that close to 70 per cent of the skilled, trained workers in certain key areas of the forest industry are from offshore. The problem the council is most concerned about is that the industry is not able to replace those workers. They are now reaching an age which is close to retirement. They will soon be out of the work force because of compulsory retirement requirements. The people required for replacement simply are not there. So I would be very glad to obtain for the hon. member, because I know he is a member of the Allmand parliamentary task force, some of the exact data.
1 recall from memory the figures mentioned in statements at the Employers' Council of British Columbia, statements made at the Economic Conference Board, the latest report of the mining industry and the latest report of the construction industry. The construction industry's report, which I received this week, indicates that close to 50 per cent of their skilled membership originally derives from outside Canada. So 1 think it is pretty clear that those are, in fact, the figures with which we are working.
We are not attempting to lay blame. We are simply asking industry to recognize that that easy way of obtaining skilled labour will no longer be available to them, that there is too much competition in the world for the very same skills, and that we will increasingly have to put far more concentration upon the training of people here in Canada. That is one reason why we feel it is very important to alter the training programs to provide for opportunities and access to women to come into non-traditional fields, an area which they have been denied for a long period of time, and to broaden the scope-


Denis Éthier: I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to both questions and answers has expired.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal for a while this afternoon with a subject which I raised with the minister and some of his colleagues who either cared to answer or did not care to answer me in the House today, on the subject of women in the public service, and the lack of advancement by women in the public service over the years, something which, I say with regret to the minister, I do not see as having improved much. In fact, in many cases the situation has regressed.
If we are to look at the question of non-discrimination in the work force on the basis of hiring, on the basis of responsibility and on the basis of salary and income, then surely the prime responsibility for equality must rest with the federal govern-

December 8, 1980

ment and the way in which it treats its own employees. It is the federal government which must set the standards and implement the programs. It must take action if it wishes the rest of the country to follow. It must take action if it wishes business and labour to follow the same way. It must set the example.
What I want to do this afternoon is to point to some of the inequities which exist and which, in many cases, are becoming more pronounced. Unfortunately, that is not the view of some of the minister's colleagues, and I direct my remarks to him in the most constructive way possible because I think he realizes that this is an area in which I have a great deal of concern and in which I have had a specific interest over the years.
It was with some interest, therefore, that I read the press release issued by the President of the Treasury Board on August 22, in which he stated:
We have come a long way toward achieving the government's goal of making equal opportunities for women a reality in the Public Service of Canada.
His interpretation of what "coming a long way to achieving the government's goal of making equal opportunities for women a reality", and mine, and that of a great many other women, are entirely different. We really do not believe that we have come that far in providing equal opportunities for women in the Public Service of Canada. If I were to look only at the Treasury Board I would see that there is only one person, as of this time, with one secretary working on all the equal pay for equal work cases in the whole of the public service. All there is in the Treasury Board is two people who are looking at these cases. I would urge the minister to speak to his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, and try to bring to his attention the fact that this will become a much bigger problem than two people can handle, that it will grow in dimension, not diminish.
I am sure that the minister responsible for the status of women knows that the statement in the press release issued by the President of the Treasury Board has been totally refuted by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women in their most recent publication, released in October, 1980, entitled "Women in the Public Service: Overlooked and Undervalued." I am going to quote rather extensively from that publication, first of all because I feel that the views in this report should be disseminated much more widely than they have been heretofore, that it should be in the public domain to a much greater extent, and also because I hope that what the advisory council has to say about women employees in the public service will be brought home much more succinctly to the minister responsible for the status of women. The following are some of the quotes from the report.
We read, for example, that:
Inequities today persist in spite of the fact that most departments currently have five year "action" plans in line with the equal opportunities for women policy adopted in 1975.
The inequities exist after five years of so-called action plans having been in progress.
As the minister is aware, there are six occupational categories in the public service, that of senior executive, scientific and professional, administrative and foreign service, technical,
Supply
administrative support and operational. All of these, of course, have responsibilities and salary scales attached to them. In the top four, those which offer the most salary and the most responsibility, those which are considered to be the most prestigious categories, that is, senior executive, scientific and professional, administrative and foreign service and technical, 45.6 per cent of the employees are male, 21.4 per cent are female, that is, in the all officer categories. In other words, less than half the employees in those four top categories are female. But in the other two categories where the income is lower and the responsibilities are lesser, in the support categories, that is, administrative support and operational, 54.3 per cent of the employees are male, whereas 78.6 per cent are female. In other words, at the lower end of the salary scale, at the lower end of responsibility, and at the lower end of upward mobility, we find a great many women locked into almost deadend jobs
The minister is aware that women make up slightly more than one-third of the public service, and yet when we look at the category of senior executives we find that 96.3 per cent of the senior executives are male and 3.7 per cent are female, this with one-third of the public service being composed of women. Indeed, I suppose one can say that since 1972 women have made some slight changes in most categories except in the scientific and professional category. The rate of change, however, in that eight-year period has been extremely slow. If these rates of progress were to continue, it would take another 66 years, until the year 2046, for women to achieve proportional representation among senior executives. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, 1 know I will not be here to see that longed for proportional representation of women. 1 doubt very much whether the minister will be here.


Mr. Breau:: I will be here.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am sure even the hon. member for Gloucester will not be here, but I would ask him to do everything he possibly can to ensure that the time-span is diminished so that women will receive much greater equality long before that period of time, given these projections. Being the honest fellow he is, I am sure the member will want to make that effort to try to get the minister to move much more rapidly than he is in this field.
In the six occupational categories which I mentioned, two of them have become increasingly segregated over the years. As the ministers will appreciate, that is a deplorable fact. The scientific and professional category has become much more a male preserve. The percentage of men who hold jobs in the scientific and professional category has increased, while the administrative support category has become consistently more female-dominated. In 1972, 68.2 per cent of the employees in the administrative support category were women, that is, secretaries, clerks and so on. In the eight years since then the percentage of women has risen to 79.7 per cent. In other words, women are more increasingly being locked into the lower end of the salary scale.
80092-S0

December 8, 1980
Supply
These categories have a specific number of groupings within them, all of them in a hierarchical scale. Even in the top categories which a few women manage to enter, they are at the bottom of the groupings in those categories; they do not make it to the top.
I have mentioned the administrative support grouping where women are found to be most predominant. Over 90 per cent of the women were in the bottom four levels of the group's eight levels, so we see even within a category itself women are being denied access to the top positions. As the minister will appreciate, all of this has a very distinct bearing on the differences in incomes between men and women which, of course, has an even greater bearing on the economic independence women are able to achieve for themselves.
The wage gap in the federal public service unfortunately is growing between men and women, rather than diminishing. There are a number of reasons for this. Some 67 per cent of all female public servants earned wages in the last year which placed them in the bottom 40 per cent of all employees in the public service, whereas only 26 per cent of men were in that category. By contrast, in the top 60 per cent earning categories of the public service where higher salaries are found, 73 per cent of the employees were men but only 32 per cent were women.
The earnings of female public servants relative to their male counterparts have improved only slightly in a few categories since 1977, but in certain categories they have not improved at all. I mentioned before the very top category; the minister will know the incomes of women in that top category of salaries. In 1977, 26.8 per cent were men in that category. In 1979 it was still 26.8 per cent. Women had 6 per cent in 1977 and only 6.1 per cent in 1979. They had gone up but a mere fraction. At the bottom end of the salary scale-and this is of significance- 39.2 per cent of the employees were women in 1977, but in 1979 that number increased to 41 per cent.
The minister talked about the increase in the number of women employed in the public service, but as the numbers of women employees increase, they increase in the lowest end of the salary scale. Women are not making the breakthrough into the top area. When different groups within the public service negotiate salary increases, they are generally negotiated across the board for the whole group in that category. This means that the increases tend not to be as great a benefit to those who receive lower salaries as those who receive the higher ones. In other words, the increment which a women receives is smaller because her income is smaller to begin with, whereas the increment which a man receives is larger because of his already larger salary. Perhaps the minister will say that everyone is being treated equally, but the percentage increase is allegedly sex blind, and in that regard a woman is doubly penalized.
There are other aspects in the public service to which I want specifically to draw the minister's attention. The system denies women access to the decision-making levels. If the minister looks at the manner in which women are placed in jobs in the public service, I am sure he will see how few of them rise to
the level of decision-making where they can provide real input into the recommendations and options brought before ministers or deputy ministers. As long as women continue to be at the margin of decision-making, it is unlikely that decisions taken will reflect the special priorities of women, which is something that must be considered. Currently women have very little input into decisions being made about which programs to cut to reduce government expenditures, even though they may have a tremendous amount to do with the lives of other women.
Since 1977 the proportion of women in the senior executive group has increased only .8 of one per cent and remains abysmally low at 3.3 per cent. As of March 31, 1979, there were only 42 female SXs compared with 1,220 male executives. I ask the minister what kind of comparison that is-42 women as against 1,220 men in that category?
These are the kinds of things which make it very difficult for women to accept the statement of the President of the Treasury Board that we have come a long way in ruling out the inequities against women which exist within the public service.
I know the minister will rise and talk about affirmative action programs and about things that are being done. I am really serious when I ask him to address this matter and tell us what kinds of programs are being considered, not just in one or two departments but in the entire public service. I am not referring to programs which are very limited. I am referring to programs which will be mandatory for the whole public service in order that the inequities which I have listed, whether they happen to be in incomes or in the input of decision-making are removed.
Is there really a program under way which will correct these inequities that have existed despite the five-year programs, which are supposedly in existence, and despite the affirmative action programs which are now only in the process of planning and development? Is there really some significant commitment that we can point to which will not be torn to ribbons, as the most recent statements of the President of the Treasury Board have been by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women?


Denis Éthier: The hon. minister has one minute to answer that question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will try to do my best, although it is not enough time to respond adequately to the questions raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, because they are serious questions. I say to her that the report of the advisory council accurately describes the conditions. No one argues with that or refutes it. There is, however, a certain time lag in that report. The time lag is there because the report was prepared before we introduced the affirmative action programs.
I would ask her, as someone who is known to be interested in this area, not to disregard so lightly, pass over or push away the importance of the affirmative action program we have implemented. It is not frivolous, light-hearted or perfunctory.
December 8, 1980

It is a very serious attempt to overcome the underlying discrimination which exists in most work structures in this country. It is clear that the equal opportunity program was not working very effectively, although there were some marginal improvements and certainly some major improvements on the lower level of the professional recruitment for women.
There is a certain kind of ratchet effect where the problem of having a number of SXs takes a certain amount of time to work up the ladder. There was not much effort made for lateral movement in the civil service. We can see some improvements, but it would take some time to achieve that. Therefore, after discussing the problem quite seriously among the ministers concerned, including myself and the President of Treasury Board, we felt that the only response was to employ the affirmative action system, or technique, which has been incorporated in the United States, Great Britain, and a few other countries. It is a very tough system, Mr. Chairman. It really works.


Denis Éthier: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. minister but to continue he would need the unanimous consent of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 thank hon. members for giving me the opportunity to continue. 1 will make my reply as brief as I can.
The reason why the affirmative action program was introduced in only three departments to begin with was that it does take a certain number of people who know how to make the program work. One of the drawbacks in this country was getting the skilled personnel in the management area who have the technical skills, expertise and knowledge in affirmative action requirements. Therefore, we are using those three departments. The initial phase is to build up those skills. We have now established a resource team in my own department which provides for other departments in the public service. We have established affirmative action counsellors and teams in each of the respective departments, who report directly to the deputy minister. Those deputy ministers then report directly to a small committee of cabinet, who will monitor on a monthly basis the progress which is being made.
The first question was accountability-to make sure that there was a senior commitment from the ministerial level on down. That commitment has been made. Second, we had to develop the resources, which we have now done. As that circle widens, as more people get skills, then we will be able to broaden the approach. But, frankly, we have had to borrow people from my department in the regions and bring them into Ottawa to make the program work. We are not getting the experience. It is now in place. The training is now completed. We have just gone through a very extensive training phase of the affirmative action counsellors. I believe that was completed last week. So the first phase is now complete.
We are now into the second phase, which is the identification of the problems. The hon. member said in question period
Supply
that the problem has been studied enough. That is not quite true. The statistical work has not been done. What must happen is you must compare not only the number of people in each category and occupation but in each department. You must compare them to the availability of those in the work force outside.
For example, in the case of my department if we have a hundred chartered accountants who work in the department and only 5 per cent of those are women, yet 20 per cent of chartered accountants available in the work force are women, we know there is a discrepancy. That kind of comparative analysis must be done, which is what we are presently doing to make sure that the judgments are made according to what is available within that work force, so that the targets can be effectively set. I will conclude quickly, Mr. Chairman. Once that is in place we can then identify where the blockages in the system are. Is it in the recruitment program, the training program, the pay scales, or personnel practices?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is the people in charge.


Lloyd Axworthy: I disagree with the hon. member. What is very clear from the affirmative action experience in the United States is that it is not the personnel manager who is the bigot or who dislikes women-there are some of those-but, in fact, what has been allowed to evolve over the years is systemic discrimination-discrimination which grows into the system over generations and decades. The only way you can eliminate that is to change the system, change the hiring practices, the recruitment and training practices. Once the blockages, the handicaps and limitations are identified they will then be removed, thus ensuring that women, as well as native groups and minority groups, will have access.
I want to point out to hon. members that the removal of those blockages and handicaps will not just affect the three departments. Once they are implemented they will then become system-wide because the three departments are being used as the lead agencies to determine that. It may be that there will be legislative changes to the Public Service Employment Act. It may be that certain public service regulations will have to be altered. It may be that the whole system of in-house training must be altered. In each of those cases, once that improvement or reform is introduced for my department, Treasury Board, or Secretary of State, it can then become system-wide in its application.
I want to assure the hon. member that we are very strongly committed to the principle. The affirmative action program has more teeth and vigour in it than the equal opportunities program ever had. This is because we recognize the deficiencies it had, which is why we have gone to the other system. It is a system which has a proven track record. Where it has been employed, in the case of the United States, it has been demonstrated that there can be substantial improvements for those groups which are being given greater opportunities or access. It will take about a four-year period to implement. As the hon. member well recognizes, four years compared to the long history of discrimination is a very short period of time.

December 8, 1980
Supply
But I am quite convinced that we will see substantial improvements when that four-year period is over.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Chairman, last Friday in his opening remarks the minister said:
While I am quite anxious to deal with the specific and ad hoc questions and inquiries of hon. members, I hope we can devote some time during the discussion of these estimates to look at some of the longer term questions faced by the department, because it is a crucial department in terms of the economic and social policies which we will be facing in the 1980s.
1 agree with those comments of the minister but 1 would like to point out that the long lists of specific questions, which will come to him from almost every part of the country, are really a result of the government's failure to take that long look in times past.
I regret that during his opening remarks the minister did not make any mention of the employment needs of native people. I would remind the minister of the statistics published by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in their publication "Indian Conditions as Surveyed." It points out that recent estimates of Indian unemployment have ranged between 35 per cent and 75 per cent of the labour force. In his June 2 statement the minister accepted the 75 per cent figure. Whether it is 35 per cent or 75 per cent, we realize that this problem is getting worse.
As this report says, in the next ten to 15 years it is estimated that the net increase in the Indian working age population will be 50,000 to 60,000, an average of 4,000 to 6,000 per year. The creation of permanent jobs through Indian economic development has recently averaged slightly more than 1,000 per year. We are falling behind.
In addition to that, the minister knows that approximately 35 per cent of those Indian people who do have employment are employed for less than six months per year. They support a large number of dependants and they take home a smaller pay cheque. Considering this fact, I regret that, in spite of hearing of some ad hoc programs, I have not heard of any long-term policies. What we have had is more ad hockery.
I have a number of questions which 1 would like to address to the minister. I will attempt to be brief, and I ask that the minister be brief so that we can get through as many as possible.
The minister has established a native opportunities training fund of some $10 million. According to a Department of Indian Affairs study, there are some 108 projects across the country with environmental hazards which will have a major impact on native populations. It seems to me that with 108 major projects this $10 million is completely inadequate. Will the minister first of all indicate on what this $10 million for the Native Opportunities Training Program is based, and what objective study of the needs for native training lies behind it? Is it a one shot fund or is it a permanent fund?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, if we are dealing with ad hockery, it would be useful for those who are raising questions
to follow the same principles and not deal with ad hoc programs. There is a range of programs available to native people, and it is not useful to pull out one program and identify it as being the only program. For example, within my department- and it is not the only department which is exclusively involved in providing job opportunities for native people-there are the services of our regular training programs, both institutional and industrial. Some 5,000 native people are enrolled in the traditional Canada Manpower program and the Canada Manpower industrial training programs.
In addition, there is the LEAP project which has a budget of $65 million, of which 50 per cent is directly focused on native training employment programs. The LEAP programs are probably the most advanced and successful programs for providing work training opportunities across Canada, and particularly in western Canada where the LEAP project is able to respond to community needs and to provide for sponsorship within a wide variety of both status and non-status communities to give many people that necessary first work experience to begin developing basic skills. The allocation in this program has been approximately $32 million, and the enrolment for native people is 8,800.
There is also the Outreach programs, 50 per cent of which are allocated to native people, to provide them with the Outreach extension services in native communities and the opportunity to develop their own work opportunities in the private market or in the Manpower programs which we otherwise employ.
The $10 million native training program was added to these other programs to provide special priority for projects related to source development in western Canada or other places where there would be new needs arising, and where native groups themselves could see opportunities to develop further work opportunities if they have the proper skills. The government is in the position of signing for several such programs. I believe we have signed close to 100 agreements since the announcement of the program last spring. The program is being used partly as a test case to determine whether its approach is effective in developing direct line training programs with native groups themselves.
As I have pointed out on many occasions in this House, we are in a transition period. Major studies are under way through the parliamentary task force and through the department to revise and revamp many of the training and employment programs. In the meantime different models, approaches and plans are being tested to determine which are the most effective. From early evaluation, indications are that the way in which the $10 million native opportunities program has been utilized has been very successful. It has given the native groups the opportunity to choose, design and tailor training to meet their specific needs in resource areas. I will be in a position to report more accurately to the House at a later date on the outcome of that program which is really just being implemented. Early reports show that it is somewhat effective.
Mr Manly: The minister points out that this is a test program. I presume that if it is successful it can look forward
December 8, 1980

to a substantial increase in the amount of funding provided to it. I would like to refer to a specific situation relating to the Cold Lake project. On December 2, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was asked about native participation in this project. As it is reported at page 5236 in Hansard, he answered:
It is difficult to know what exact arrangements will be possible. I have raised this matter with Imperial Oil, which is the main promoter of Cold Lake, and they have indicated they are willing to consider participation by the Indians in the project. Obviously, it would require the full co-operation of the two governments in order to achieve this particular purpose.
Considering the fact that Canadians have been asked to put up an additional $40 million for this project, and thereby have a vital stake in it, this approach by the government is a very weak-kneed-"If Imperial Oil is willing, if the Alberta government is willing; then we can see what we can do about native participation". Is the minister prepared to fight for an affirmative action program for the Cold Lake project and to insist that no pricing agreement be signed without agreement on native training, native employment, and native business development support? In view of the $40 million allocated to Imperial Oil, how much will the minister make available for native training, and is it all to come out of this $10 million?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, while we would like to implement an affirmative action program for the major resource projects in Alberta, the provincial government seriously disagrees with our approach. It follows what it calls the "local preference program". In fact their human rights legislation has basically outlawed affirmative action principles or requirements other than if the provincial cabinet makes an exception, which would have to be approved by order in council. In effect, what the Alberta government is saying is that affirmative action programs are illegal according to provincial statutes.
The federal government has made it very clear that it does not agree with this opinion. It will be an area of some continuing discussion between the federal government and the government of Alberta because we, as a government, are fully committed to this principle. Because of this, the resource companies are caught between the Alberta government, which is not prepared to recognize affirmative action, and the federal government and its insistence upon it. That is really what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was referring to.
There is no clearcut choice, and it may be that there will have to be a court case. I believe, and my hon. friend over here would know, that two Indian bands have already gone to court to test that law in Alberta, and that the courts have sided with the bands. It may be that the federal government at some point will have to go to court as well, but that decision has not yet been taken in the hope that we can work out an arrangement with the government of Alberta. In the meantime this law is a serious impediment to the introduction of the affirmative action principle.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would the minister give us chapter and verse proof that the Alberta government has refused to recognize affirmative action?
Supply


Denis Éthier: Order. There are time limitations. The hon. member will have his opportunity when we return to him.


James Douglas Manly: I certainly hope that the federal government will use its leverage to insist that there be an affirmative action program and to protect native participation in this project, instead of sacrificing it to other interests. I think it is important that the federal government start living up to its responsibility for native people and not always be backing down to provinces like Alberta on something like this.
The minister referred to the fact that his is not the only department involved in funding. I should like to refer to a paper issued by Irvin Goodleaf, executive director of the National Indian Brotherhood, entitled "Native Employment Strategy for the '80s". In part he states as follows:
1 refer, lastly, to Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission programs which all too often place bands and enterprises in a "Catch-22" situation by their restrictive criteria. We are told, for example, that we cannot use LEAP funds to establish businesses in competition with existing non-Indian businesses. We are told that LEAP funds cannot be used to finance 'the normal activities of any ongoing enterprise.'
Mr. Axworthy, on June 2, 1980, announced a whole range of employment programs, each one geared to specific purposes. Picture the situation of a small band with limited staff resources, far from any Canada Manpower centre, trying to determine the most appropriate funding source for its specific projects.
A more appropriate approach would be to establish a single community development fund for Indian communities with a straightforward set of criteria stating how the money can be spent.
At a meeting of the National Indian Brotherhood executive council on October 20 it was noted that many federal departments and agencies had included Indian population statistics in the distribution of federal funds to provinces, municipalities and other agencies. It was also noted that Indian moneys on a federal level have been distributed to other federal departments, resulting in the diffusion of services and under the guise of a native component, both of which give little value for the funds appropriated for Indian governments. It was recommended that a joint approach be made to Treasury Board, other federal departments, Indian governments, and the minister so that a one agency concept could be developed and implemented which will identify all Indian moneys and have them distributed to the various Indian governments by the minister.
Whenever we ask either the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister of Employment and Immigration about this, they point out that this is not the only program, that there are other programs. This is confusing enough for members of Parliament, so I am sure that for the native people who are trying to get funding for necessary programs, it is very confusing indeed. I wonder if the minister would give us reaction to the one source concept of funding.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, there is already a system in place within cabinet for that kind of co-ordination with the social committee, where major priority is given to the development of new native programs. The responsible ministers in

December 8, 1980
Supply
each of the departments that have an impact on native programs are represented. It is through that committee that a fair amount of discussion is presently taking place, part of which is related to the issue of how to develop better delivery of federal services and federal resources to native people.
Part of the problem is the split jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. Our responsibility is clearly with status Indians, while the non-status and Metis come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, even though we help them through our internal programs. The hon. member can see where there might be a certain static in the system if we simply co-ordinate our programs for status Indians, because we would then have to pull the rug from under a lot of the non-status groups that we presently help through LEAP programs and Outreach programs.
With regard to the criticisms raised in the paper that the hon. member quoted from, I do not think they are fair in some respects. The question was asked how small Indian bands are expected to respond. As I pointed out earlier, close to $3.7 million is allocated under Outreach programs which, in many cases, provide workers to many of the small bands and councils and communities in the north and in western Canada to make ' them aware of native programs.
In northern Manitoba there are something like 20 or 30 Outreach workers who live within the reserves or the communities. They provide ongoing information, contact and liaison between the native organizations and the department about the programs that are available. I met with many of them a month and one half ago in order to find out how well this is working. In some cases they are the only workers represented in those areas and they do get deflected into providing health and social services and other kinds of programs. Through the Outreach program, however, we have attempted to provide the direct contact and information and advocacy which is necessary in order to provide the native communities with the opportunity to take advantage of the programs that are available. That is what we use the Outreach program for, with varying degrees of success. As I have pointed out, we are evaluating how effective this approach has been, and the Outreach program itself is being re-evaluated.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Chairman, I think the fact remains that the bands that have expertise in applying for different funds get much more in return from those funds than those bands that simply rely upon the Outreach program.
I should like to mention the labour component for housing which is a very significant need in most Indian communities. As the minister knows, this used to be provided by LEAP, and some $8 million has been allocated for housing from LEAP in the current year. In future, the labour component must be funded through the Canada Community Development Project Fund. A total of $7 million is available for all native projects across Canada. If all housing moneys were taken out of this $7 million CCDP, how much would be left for other community development projects in native communities?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, in the one minute left, 1 have to say that under the Canada Community Development Project, while we put an additional $7 million over and above the normal allocation, obviously in those constituency areas where there is a large native population, the full allocation can also be registered, and it is equated according to the unemployment figures as labour surplus figures in those areas. We have attempted to make adjustments in those cases so that the allocation does not all necessarily go for housing. It really depends upon the advice we get from the advisory boards in each of those constituencies.


Mr. Gimaiel:: Mr. Chairman, it is always most interesting to deal with manpower and immigration in this country, and especially with manpower. As we are now looking into the department's estimates, I can truly say that in ridings such as Lac-Saint-Jean which I represent, the Department of Employment and Immigration is probably most representative in various ways of the Canadian government. First of all, the department's presence has been excellent for a number of years; there are several of its officials operating within my riding; most of my constituents have been in contact with one or more of these officials. Moreover, the department's policies are in line with the country's policies, which means that in whatever region they may live in Canada, all Canadians have equal opportunities to develop and acquire a higher social status, thus safeguarding their self respect.
At noon today, I was interested to hear the hon. member for Oshawa and Leader of the New Democratic Party ask the Prime Minister what his government meant to offer small wage earners to help them pay for food costs which have risen and will certainly continue to rise. Mr. Trudeau replied that Canadians may have to change slightly their purchasing habits and spend more money on food. My own reaction would have been to say: just consider the past ten years, and you will realize what this government has done precisely to help the have-nots in this country. The best example of its effort is the fine job which the Department of Employment and Immigration has done.
And then there are what are called job-creation programs. Whatever one may say or think, it is a tremendous and unique experience. For once a government, in the early seventies, when unemployment was not as high as it is today, feeling that the future might be less promising because the economic and international situation was getting increasingly difficult and hard for different groups of people, decided to earmark millions of dollars and make them available to the Canadian people. That is what we may call a vote of confidence not only in the present but also in the future.
The sad thing is that most unemployment problems we face in this country are felt especially by the young people. Half the jobless in this country are young. Why? For all kinds of reasons. The jobs are unionized and thus protected. There is
December 8, 1980

also the fact that a large number of young people are entering the labour market, and a large number of women are leaving home and returning to work as they were entitled to do. The fact is that young people have to face the problem of our economic structure. And what does it mean when a government says, "We are giving you millions. Please develop your ideas and implement them." That represents an extraordinary poll. It means an extraordinary political structural basis. It also means that people who do not have much money can state their ideas and contribute to the development of their country.
A more important consideration, however, is that in Canada it is impossible for everyone to be wrong at the same time. I know some countries and even some provinces where policies come from higher authorities, where everything is directed where you can get money when you endorse government decisions. This is quite fine until the day when the higher authority is wrong and then everyone is wrong.
In projects such as Canada Works or in the local employment assistance projects it is possible, of course, that certain things are done that are not so good. This can happen. Yet most of the things done are good and I would even go so far as saying that most ideas become essential directions for the government. It is in that respect that I find this program to be so important.
Just think that barely one year ago only-indeed we are soon going to celebrate the defeat of the former Progressive Conservative government-let us just think that hardly a year ago there were people calling themselves Canadians, who say that they are in favour of developing this country, who preach separatism, for instance, both in the west and in the east, be it in Montreal or Calgary, who enjoy saying once in a while that they would like to see this country break apart, these people came to tell us that they were suppressing these labour force programs, especially the programs designed to create employment.
Instead, you will be given tax credits for hiring. That is all very well, but when you come to a province like Alberta the situation is much better than in Quebec. There has been a lot of hiring going on in Alberta in the last little while. And there is going to be much more in the next few years because that is where the billions are. Everyone is aware of that, everyone knows this. But did that government think for one minute of the negative social impact of such a decision?
I refuse to discuss the matter any longer, Mr. Chairman, but I still want to stress to my hon. colleagues the fact beyond the political will of governments, beyond the wishes of the heads of states, one thing remains that is extremely important in this world of ours: the sun shines for everyone and, given that context, everyone under the sun has a right to human dignity. And in our society, regrettably so I must say, human dignity depends to some extent on money.
If a man does not get the bare minimum of income to at least go shopping holding his head high, serious social prob-
Supply
lems arise. In that context I should now like to ask the minister-but first I must congratulate him on those projects, on those local employment programs. I shall never forget the Canada Works program. I should like to ask the minister if we can now hope to have them again next year, while thanking him for having reintroduced them this year.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member, we have pointed out several times in this House the philosophy that we are trying to apply in this department. We try to focus on the areas in the country, and on those groups and those industries which need help the most. To do that we need to have some degree of control and some ability to focus on those areas and to move away from programs which are simply glossed over which may affect some of the unemployed and others who are not. For that reason, we have tended to move more into the direct employment programs where we can have a greater sense of design, planning, and application, where the problems are most severe. To that extent I can assure the hon. member that that will be our intention. However, we will have to wait to see what kind of proposals come from the parliamentary task force and others who, I hope, will give us useful advice on how we might improve upon those programs.
[ Translation]


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Concerning the recommendations which will be made by the task force on the opportunities for the eighties, I hope that, in that context, my colleagues who will be members of that group will also consider the great impact of such projects in areas which, like mine, maintained social peace in our country for the last ten years. Those projects are very important and I hope nobody will try to diminish their merits by saying, as I often heard in some provincial legislatures, that they only amounted to a patching policy. I smiled a lot since then because those same people developed programs such as OSE and everything you want, all kinds of programs which are only reproductions of those which were established ten years ago. And I hope that we shall go on moving at top speed as we have been doing up to date in that area.
If I may put aside your department for a while, I would like to deal with what I think is a fairly interesting issue concerning employment across Canada. In the last ten years, the Canadian government, through a department which does not come under your authority but which is doubly related to yours, by the fact that Mr. Love, your present deputy minister was for many years deputy minister at DREE, and the fact that it too deals with economic issues, and you will know by now, of course, that I am talking about the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the government, therefore, through this department, has acquired tremendous control over the economy, not only of the provinces or the major

December 8, 1980
Supply
economic regions of this country, but over all its subregions. At present, no provincial department of trade and commerce can provide us, in a reasonable amount of time, with as much information as DREE can on any subregion in any province of Canada. I find that most interesting and I also think that it is the key to the future policies of your department and of other economically oriented departments.
Also it is obvious that by knowing the needs, the causes and the problems in each one of our regions, the government can provide leadership to provincial and municipal governments through the programs it develops to solve our economic problems. What concerns me most is that there are still inadequacies in certain services. I am thinking, for example, of the Post Office, which has yet to open post offices in some areas. But what I mean especially is that additional facilities could be provided across the country. In some areas, because policies were not fully implemented or for some other reason such as change in government, services provided by certain departments are not as good as elsewhere.
My question therefore is this: does your department foresee the possibility of using funds already available in other programs or funds that it may be granted, to call upon local manpower to build federal government facilities, such as post offices, in certain areas?
I expect you will tell me that comes under the Department of Public Works but I can reply that that department, when it is forced to pay for labour and material, is burdened with very heavy economic duties. Since your department is already paying much for labour in the country all year long I wonder if it is conceivable that part of the manpower you pay for either through Canada Works or various other programs could be used for purposes such as those?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member poses a very important policy question as to how we can begin to combine the efforts of the employment creation which we are able to support and some of the other priorities of departments, such as fisheries, regional economic expansion, and public works. In the development of the community development employment program this year, we set forward the principle that we would work with other departments which had specific capital works programs in mind, that we would provide the employment component and they provide the capital component. It worked very successfully in the mari-times where the departments of fisheries and the environment put up a certain amount of capital to do fishing wharf enhancement and the development of new fishing services. We provided the employment composite.
We have been fairly enthusiastic about the way that worked out. We hope to develop it further in our additional employment programs, as they develop. It is a way of getting double value for the amount of money that is spent. We can enhance
our own priorities so that we will be increasingly moving our employment programs toward the establishment of key national priorities, so that two or three departments can combine and use their resources in a combined fashion.


Mr.   Gimai@: I thank the minister for a quite satisfactory answer. It is true that you contributed to many of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans programs, my own riding being one of those which received grants, and it is true that there is a very important double goal that is often achieved. I should wish the experience to be repeated with other departments.
In a somewhat different area that still concerns DREE, I was telling you earlier about the expertise of DREE in ascertaining the needs of areas, but that department is still acutely aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the various areas of the country. There is nonetheless something that worries me a little about what is going on in your department. I have already written you about it. I would like to make further comments on it this afternoon after having thought out the matter. The small matter that worries me relates to the Canada Manpower Mobility Program, the CMMP as it is called in the various sectors of your department. That program was, and I repeat was most useful for the people in my area. It could allow people to move over short distances within provinces with a reasonable amount, by that I mean they were receiving enough of a grant, based on real costs, to go and look for a job 100 or 120 kilometres away, or a greater distance if needed. This program was changed, and that change was quite negative because, taking as an example the province of Quebec, the largest in Canada, the program is now available within reasonable standards, that is, for amounts of $100 and more, to people undertaking rather extensive trips.
Assuming someone goes from Quebec to Alberta, because he or she found work through the manpower centre, your department will give a sizeable grant to help. But should the same individual go from my constituency, Lac-Saint-Jean, to work in Quebec City, he would not reach the minimal $100 level, and this is a misery because $100 is not enough in my view to cover the move; he would not reach that minimum level and would be flatly refused. As I said, Quebec being the largest province, the same policy applies to provinces like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and almost completely eliminates any help from your department for interprovincial manpower move. This is an extremely drastic change. Instead of a plan that took people from areas within greater regions to bring them to strong points, taking them for instance from Lac-Saint-Jean to work in Quebec City or Montreal, your program now takes people from a province, from a large region with a weak economy and moves them to another province with a very strong economy.
I consider that a setback because I will say very frankly that I strongly believe in moving workers within regions and even within provinces. Why? Because they have the opportunity to
December 8, 1980

undergo training and sometimes even to come back home with some experience after a while. That also enables a great many young people who are obviously without any qualifications when there is a job opportunity to leave these areas and find work where there are more opportunities. But I believe that asking them to move to a completely new environment is to court serious social problems.
1 would look unfavourably at a policy of the Government of Canada promoting the displacement of people from the mari-times to Alberta which would bring about a massive exodus greater than usual from the maritimes or from Quebec toward Alberta or the richer provinces. I would be concerned by such a movement because we must realize that it is not so easy to settle in these rich provinces for it is well known that housing is expensive, development is extremely rapid and local municipalities can hardly keep up with it to provide the necessary infrastructures, and if you add to all these problems the fact that governments of some provinces, like Alberta, are more interested today in increasing the liquidity they get from the sale of oil even to their own residents than in trying to help their own citizens or their own municipalities develop fast enough, I am afraid that such a program would make matters worse. And I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if it would not be possible not to do away with the structure of the manpower mobility programs as it now exists and with the help it provides for long distance travel but to revert partly to the previous policy which was specifically intended to help movements within the same subregions of Canada.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The time allotted for the question and answer has expired.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to carry on with my questioning with regard to the affirmative action programs the minister mentioned. He seems to put a great deal of reliance on that approach to correct the inequities which exist within the federal public service respecting women. I would perhaps be more reassured if I thought that some of the programs initiated by his government earlier had had more commitment to them than we have seen over the years.
1 want to ask two questions about the affirmative action program. First, what is committed to it in the way of resources, and from where are those resources being drawn? Second, will the minister undertake now to provide the House with a quarterly report as to the advances being made by the affirmative action program so that we will know from quarter to quarter just what is being accomplished? I say this because I know the minister has tremendous statistical and research resources at his disposal within the department. This is something he can do very easily to prove the affirmative action programs are working.


Lloyd Axworthy: In the first two phases of the program, the hon. member will recognize the primary resource is the allocation of person-years. 1 believe it is about 25 person-years which
Supply
have been allocated to this stage for the first two phases as the programs extend and the reallocation comes about. As for her second suggestion about the quarterly report, 1 personally will be pleased to consult with my colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of State, who are part of the committee. Knowing of their generosity and openness, I am sure they will not object.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am not as sure as the minister. When he answers the first part of the question, I would like him to tell me where the resources are being drawn from so that I will know some other program is not being cut back as a result.
There is a second matter I wish to draw to the minister's attention with regard to the under-representation of women. I draw some of my facts and statistics from a report prepared for the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I am talking about boards, commissions, councils, committees, Crown corporations, all of that grouping of corporations and commissions whose members are appointed by the federal government.
I am sure the minister realizes that to those commissions and boards, those order in council appointments, there are two kinds of appointments. There are full-time appointments and part-time appointments. First of all, I want to mention the full-time appointments. There are some 292 full-time appointments to boards, commissions, councils and so on that are made by the federal government. Of these 292 appointments, 247 of them are men and 45 are women. The majority of those 45 women are appointed to two commissions only, that is to the citizenship commission and to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. If we take out the number of women on those two boards from the 45 women appointed, it would leave only 21 women appointed to the other 84 agencies or committees. Of those 21 women appointed, only about 9.4 per cent of them hold executive positions. In other words, they are not providing major input at the decision-making level.
Of the 13 women who hold full-time executive positions, only five are at the very top. Of these five women, only two are classified at the deputy minister level-in fact, I think it has dropped to one now. So that we have only five women holding executive positions at the same time as 125 men holding senior executive positions. That shows, in brief summary, that women are not only under-represented in full-time appointments, but they are in positions where they can wield very little power and are denied comparable status in pay. Those are the full-time appointments to boards.
As for part-time appointments, there are some 956 appointments in the federal government. Of those, 812 are male and 144 are female. Of the 144 females appointed part-time, only two hold executive positions. Again, we see how poorly women are represented in these appointments and, secondly, how they get very minimal or low-status appointments. There are no women at the very top. There are no women who hold the position of chairperson, of president or of chief commissioner.

December 8, 1980
Supply
1 should like to bring to the attention of the minister the kinds of boards and commissions 1 am talking about, such as Air Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Canada Labour Relations Board, the CBC, Canadian National, the Canadian Transport Commission, the National Energy Board and Petro-Canada. In all of these, decisions are being taken which affect our communications, our transportation systems, our finances, our energy supplies and our economic strategies. These are decisions that are being made without adequate representation from one half of the population of this country.
Three of the eight agencies I mentioned have only one woman sitting on their boards. They are Air Canada, the Canadian Labour Relations Board and the National Energy Board. The other five I mentioned have no women on their boards at the present time. They are, the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian National, the Canadian Transport Commission and Petro-Canada. There are no women on the boards of these very important agencies which are directing much of the decision-making of this country.
What I should like to ask the minister is this. Since this is another whole area where the federal government has the opportunity to move and where he as minister responsible for the status of women has a great opportunity to provide input, how many of these Crown corporations or federally-tied companies are committed now to affirmative action programs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thought the hon. member was going on to another line of questioning, but I see she came back to the actual affirmative action issue. 1 can tell the members of the House-I do not know if it is public yet but I am sure they would not mind my saying-that we have already signed an agreement with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to establish an affirmative action program. The president of that corporation and the minister responsible have been very co-operative in coming together. Since we have undertaken the activity with the public service, they have now agreed to this in that major Crown corporation as a first step. 1 have also written letters to several of my colleagues who have a number of Crown corporations under their jurisdiction indicating to them an interest to negotiate with them.
As the hon. member may know, within our own Department of Employment and Immigration we have a separate section working with the private sector to develop affirmative action programs with private companies and with Crown corporations. These are being negotiated right now. For example, they are negotiating one with the government in my own city of Winnipeg, on the same premise.
In the area of Crown corporations we are attempting to make some progress and are negotiating to get these agreements signed, although it does take some time to explain to them what the opportunities might be, how the affirmative action programs in fact work and how to get decisions by their board of directors or by their other chief executives. This is something we are pursuing.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: May I suggest to the minister, who has been making such a great thing about a search for a Canadian in a certain other occupation, that he take that approach with the president of Petro-Canada, with the chairman of the National Energy Board, the president of the CBC, the president of Canadian National Railways and with a good many Crown corporations. I can assure him they would not have to search nearly as hard to find a number of women who have the ability and the clout to provide the input necessary on these boards. The minister responsible for the status of women should give these commissions very direct guidelines to go out and search immediately for women to become members of the boards of these Crown companies and government agencies.
Just one final question on a different matter, a matter that I know is of great concern to many people across this country. 1 want to know if the minister is approaching his provincial counterparts to discuss the updgrading of work standards for domestic workers in this country, especially those who have recently immigrated to Canada and where the work situations in which they find themselves are anything but adequate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, in respect to the last question, I have written to the provincial ministers of labour outlining the position of our government. We feel that the labour codes should be brought up to standard and applied to domestic workers who come from offshore. The position of this government is that we would not agree to issue work permits until we gain some assurance that the working conditions for someone coming to work as a domestic would be comparable to those offered to a Canadian. That is not always possible to administer because so much of the labour activity is beyond our jurisdiction. I have written to the provincial ministers about that and we are in discussing holding some kind of conference this year, and we will certainly put that item on the agenda.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Employment and Immigration before us today certainly give us an opportunity to raise a wide range of questions concerning this department. The programs operated by this department are very important to the slow-growth areas of the country. I think especially of programs like Canada Works, LIP, the youth employment program, LEAP and a large number of other training-related programs which have a definite effect on the slow-growth areas of our country, especially those requiring direct job-creation programs.
In my constituency these programs have had a more visible impact on rural communities than perhaps any other federal government program. Their impact is visible in terms of improved housing for Indian bands, new halls and recreational facilities and docking and marina facilities in a large number of communities. There are programs for new firehalls, new community halls and facilities for senior citizens. There is also a large number of recreational programs. I think we have reached a certain limit, however, with respect to community
December 8, 1980

facilities in that many municipalities have now used up all the funds available to them for material costs.
Many municipalities and the department generally are now interested in projects which will actually create new economic activity. In this respect I think of projects under LEAP. For instance, this winter we are building an addition to the nursing home at Wikwimekong which is one of the largest Indian bands in the Algoma-Manitoulin area. This nursing home is receiving LEAP funding and will ultimately provide accommodations for some 30 patients. LEAP is providing funding for labour costs. It will ultimately create some 14 jobs in that nursing home.
Likewise funds which are being spent under direct employment programs like Canada Works and the Winter Works programs will improve docking facilities for the tourist industry, which is very important throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin district and for which no other source of funding seems to have been available for the last year or so. The Canada Works program has been very beneficial there.
However, the problem we face with these programs is the drastic reduction in the amount of funding. For the past several years the funding level in the Algoma-Manitoulin area has run in the neighbourhood of $1.5 million. During this past year it has been something like $250,000. Applications from Indian bands, rural municipalities and other non-profit groups have continued at the higher level. A few weeks ago I asked the minister if additional funding would be provided for the community development program, and he indicated that in the budget there is some $350 million for industrial activity and adjustment. I hope he will be able to indicate to us today the amount of additional funding which will be provided under the community development program, because a number of projects which were not funded or had to be reduced in size for this coming winter could be funded if the minister allocated additional moneys to this program.
The second inquiry I have is whether future funding for this program will be set out in the main estimates. When the community development program and the Canada Works program was established, it was established on a five-year basis and the funds were put in the main estimates of the department. Job-creation officers working with municipalities or Indian bands were able to say, "We will do this project over a two or three-year period". The program was totally cancelled while the Conservative government was in power, and many projects were left half completed.
However, now that the program has now been reinstated, I hope the minister will be able to indicate how many years this program will be in operation so that groups applying for funding can plan to phase their projects over a period of years. This is very important because funding for materials must be put up, and since groups often cannot afford to pay the full cost in one year, they phase their projects over a number of years. For instance, at least one municipality in my constituency-there might have been two or three others-was undertaking a marina project. It was phased over a period of two or
Supply
three years as its shares of funding was available. I hope the minister will be able to indicate the duration of this program.
I want to raise a number of questions about the Local Economic Development Assistance program. Applications have been sought from a number of municipalities across the country to set up LEDA corporations in an effort to generate more economic activity, especially among the private sector, to provide some assistance to local development corporations, to seek out and find worth-while industries in slow-growth areas and to provide some capital funding or loan funding. A number of municipalities are waiting to find out whether they will receive interim funding for the design of projects, and I would be interested in knowing if the minister could tell us when decisions about LEDA corporations will be made known, at least in the Ontario region.
Early this fall the minister indicated to me that he was assessing the possibility of establishing a Canada Employment Centre in Blind River, Ontario for the north shore area. I think this would be a wise move. There is a certain amount of economic activity there, but the services of Canada Manpower would be very valuable to that community and to the north shore region. I hope the minister will give an indication today whether a decision has been made and when the Manpower centre will be provided for that community and that whole sweep of communities along the north shore of Lake Huron.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who is involved with the special committee on manpower and critical manpower needs, spoke in the House this afternoon. I think his committee has a very important responsibility to this House because in a large number of instances in communities in northern Ontario there is a shortage of trained, skilled workmen, especially tradesmen, diesel mechanics and tool and die makers. There are all critical manpower shortages, yet we have high unemployment in the country.
I hope that committee will be making recommendations, because surely during the 1980s, as major construction projects go forward-I refer to Elliot Lake, Sault Ste. Marie, Espanola and a number of other pulp and paper communities throughout northern Ontario-there will be shortages in certain trades such as pipe fitting, steam fitting and others like that. I certainly hope we can find a solution to this problem of high unemployment while at the same time a number of tradesmen are in short supply. A few years ago mining companies in northern Ontario were applying for these skilled tradesmen in the United Kingdom. A few months later there were massive lay-offs at the Inco mine at Sudbury. So obviously we need a better training program and a better forecasting mechanism in the department.
Recently I read that the Department of Employment and Immigration, in co-operation with the provincial governments, was planning to purchase a new school in Toronto for training people, which would reduce the apprenticeship and training period on the job from four years to three years. It seems to me that this would be a good move, and I wonder if the

December 8, 1980
Supply
minister is planning to do that in other communities across the country, thus increasing the tradesmen who are available while at the same time giving more Canadians a chance to work in trades where there is a shortage of supply.
The minister noted on Friday in his speech that about 170,000 jobs were created this year. He also indicated that the number of people coming into the labour force would be reduced during the next few years. I wonder if the minister could provide us with the figure for the actual number of people which the department anticipates will come into the labour force between 1981 and 1985. It seems to me that it would be useful for the House to know whether the actual number of people coming into the labour force, as projected by the department, is dropping. This has been indicated many times, but we are not sure of the exact projections of the department. Surely it would be useful, in planning the work of the committee and of the department, if the number of people coming into the labour force were reduced during this period. Ultimately this would reduce the number of unemployed.
Mr. Chairman, 1 want to leave sufficient time for the minister to respond to the several questions I have put to him, so I will take my seat now.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for a series of interesting and important questions. 1 will try to answer them as best I can in the time he has left me.
On the first question concerning the funding for the community development projects, as I pointed out, we have to work within the estimate limits which were set by the previous government. We are now reconsidering the employment programs we have. As I pointed out in my previous answer, we are at present looking at these matters in cabinet. There is the obvious difficulty that there are thousands of demands on very scarce resources and we are trying to allocate them to the most important needs. Certainly it is my intention to request some additional funds in the employment area. When we are able to make some decisions on the budget allocations put forward by the Minister of Finance, the hon. member will find proper attention paid to the employment requirements in this country, particularly in areas of high unemployment.
On the issue of the Blind River office, 1 apologize to the hon. member but a decision has not yet been made. We are assessing the requirements of either setting up a branch office or of increasing the frequency of our visits to the area. 1 hope we will be able to have a decision for the hon. member by mid-January, so he can assure his constituents that they will have some form of improved service by that period.
On the question of the trade schools, I have been intrigued by that particular development. We have received a high degree of co-operation from the government of Ontario in developing new approaches to training programs. We will be starting major negotiations with all provincial governments within the next six to nine months on the extension of the occupational training act. This is the fundamental formula we use for applying training moneys to provincial institutions. It is
our hope at that time, when we have possession of some of the findings and ideas that have been developed by the Allmand task force and the task force working in our own department, to be able to use those ideas as a way of developing new approaches which we will be in a position to discuss with provincial officials.
1 would say by way of comment that the new approach which that trade school initiative represents is one that I personally find very attractive because it responds to the real problem of making sure that those who are going into training programs are not limited to either institutional or industrial training but have a combination of both. We have been looking at the polytechnic model which is used in Europe as one of the ways in which we can focus on particular sector needs, whether it be in construction, aerospace, or whatever, to set up different kinds of training centres which would specialize in those areas across Canada. We will be looking at that experiment very closely, analysing it and discussing it with provincial officials.
In the area of the LEDA proposals, as the hon. member will recognize, we put that forward as an experimental program in longer-term community economic development, and we will be administering this jointly with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. As I indicated at the time, our resources would allow for perhaps 15 projects across Canada. At this time we have received upwards of 40 applications, and many keep coming in, which shows the attractiveness of that approach. So we will be in the very tough position of having to decide which projects may best illustrate different facets of different ideals, different methods of local economic development, and we will be choosing according to that criterion. So some choice will begin to be made within the next month when an announcement will be made. My own regret is that we will not be able to fund all the projects, but will be choosing them according to those which give the best over-all picture of different opportunities and different alternatives which we can try.
With regard to the labour force growth, this is work that is being done by the different task forces which are working at present. By way of illustration, early forecasts have shown that while the labour force growth in the period of 1976 to 1979- the period which we have just completed-has been about 3 per cent, it is our expectation that in the period 1980 to 1985 it will be in the range of about 2 per cent, which, when measured against the labour force in Canada, which is in the neighbourhood of about 11.6 million workers, will show an approximate growth of 900,000.
We have to be very careful in using that figure in the sense that one other phenomenon or trend has been quite obvious, and that is the increasing participation rate of the labour force. One thing we have been noticing is that the participation of women has gone up radically, by almost 5 per cent or 6 per cent in the last four or five years. The participation rate of young people has also gone up quite remarkably so that there is a higher ratio of people working than at any other time in the country as compared to over-all population. So while there
December 8, 1980

may be a decline in the population numbers, if the ratio of participation rates goes up, it will tend to shorten the gap between labour demand and labour growth.
At the same time I think we will still be facing the possibility of running labour short in key areas of the population which have been traditionally restricted to male workers, because that may be the area where the shortage may show up most profoundly. That is why it is important for us to develop ways of making a transition in providing opportunities for women to move into non-traditional work, and that is one of the reasons why we have introduced several new programs to that effect.


Maurice Brydon Foster: There is one short question to which 1 would like the minister to respond. It concerns some indication that the direct employment programs, such as the community development program, will be in operation, or a clear signal given that this program will operate for two or three years. This would allow municipalities to do a phased project. After all, they have to put up the material costs. 1 wonder if the minister is planning to have the funding for such direct employment programs in the main estimates next year, because in the past year they have been in the supplementary estimates and there has been no clear indication of the length of time during which the program will run. I think it is important both for municipal officials and employees in the minister's own department to have a clear signal that the program will last for one, two or three years. I hope that that will be the way in which the program will be operated.


Lloyd Axworthy: May I say in half a minute that that is a very worthy proposal. We are examining it in the context of the over-all evaluation we are conducting of labour market requirements which the task force and others are examining. Of course, the only limitation is that estimates can only signify money for one year, and we must keep going back for new funding. But certainly from my experience the community services program, in which we provided for the extension of the program over a three-year period, seems to be working very well. We will be using it as a model to examine, as part of the larger direct employment programs.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could I ask the minister how many people live in Alberta?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the exact figures. I believe it is somewhere over the two million mark and growing very rapidly, by about 8 per cent per year.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, it is a little over 2,100,000. How many people live in western Canada?


David Michael Collenette: What is this?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, if the member persists in elementary geography and demography lessons, 1 am sure we can get him an atlas which would supply him with information. But I would hope we could go on to more serious topics.
Supply


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is a little over six million. About 8 per cent of the people of the country live in the province of Alberta; a little over 25 per cent live in western Canada. In the registered apprenticeship trades in Canada, what proportion of those registered in apprenticeship trades programs are registered in the province of Alberta?


Lloyd Axworthy: I will get those figures for the hon. member. We will look them up.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Are those figures available from the minister's officials? I am willing to wait a moment.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could I have the figures for western Canada as well? The answers to those questions are important to the line of questioning I wish to pursue.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will bear with me, I will provide the following figures. Under the present institutional training programs, in the province of Manitoba there are 9,640; in the province of Saskatchewan there are 8,947-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Lloyd Axworthy: -in the province of Alberta there are 29,465; in the province of British Columbia there are 33,833. In industrial-


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Calgary West is rising on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I just asked the minister for the registered apprenticeship trades programs. He is giving the programs of his department, but I am interested in the proportion of people in apprenticeable trades who are registered in the province of Alberta. I suggest to the minister that it is in excess of 25 per cent, with around 8 per cent of the population. Will the minister simply confirm that and give me the figures for western Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: I was endeavouring to give the figures for western Canada before the hon. member popped to his feet with one of his often gratuitous points of order. If I may continue giving the answer, under the industrial program, which pays for most of the apprenticeship programs or the critical trade skills, the following figures are available for the province of Alberta, 6,563; in the critical trade skills area, 200. Those are the programs we supply. If the hon. member wants further numbers, we will endeavour to find them for him.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I suggest to the minister that the province of Alberta specifically and western Canada generally have the best record in Canada today of people in trades training programs. I think the facts are such that well over one-quarter of the people registered in apprenticeable trades in Canada today are registered in the province of Alberta. I raised that issue in that form because, as reported on page 5418 of Hansard, the minister made the following statement:

December 8, 1980
Supply
I want to report, however, that there is not quite the same keenness and enthusiasm expressed by provincial officials, particularly in our western provinces where they tend to want to go it alone and, as a result, are substantially impeding the development of new training programs in these areas.
Where is the minister's justification for claiming that western provinces are impeding the progress of training?


Lloyd Axworthy: As we have tried to point out in the House several times, the labour market in Canada is not divided along provincial or even regional lines. We must draw our skills, our people and our resources from right across the country and from outside Canada. In our forecast it is estimated that the skill shortage in the western provinces will be in the neighbourhood of almost 30,000 per year over the next four years. Those are people who are not available in those provinces or are not being trained at the present time. They will come from other provinces and other countries.
Under those circumstances it is very important to ensure when they arrive that they have proper training and that the training is allocated in accordance with demands in terms of the different industrial sectors, whether it is mining, oil and gas, or pipeline construction. Therefore, it is very important to have the ability to employ a national training scheme and to have those kinds of discussions so that, within the jurisdiction of the federal government, where we must be responsible for the movement and mobility of people across Canada, we have the ability to make decisions and choices to ensure a large movement of people to satisfy the shortages in these areas.
At the present time we spend in the province of Alberta, which "likes to go it alone", as they say, well over $65 million of federal money on our programs to ensure training in those areas. Furthermore, it is very important when training is provided that it is not provided for only one group or category of the population. We as a federal government have tried to be an equal opportunity employer and trainer to ensure proper access for native groups, women and minority groups.
As 1 pointed out in a previous answer, there are certain provinces which are opposed to that approach and say so in their legislation. If we are to make effective and efficient use of people in the country, then we must ensure equal opportunities. Again that is why we feel there must be a national approach.
If the member would look at the context in which that statement was made, it was within the context that Canadians must supply the labour market needs of western Canada. Canadians would be moving into those areas, not just regional or provincial people. That is the difference in approach between this side of the House and that side of the House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Again I direct the minister to his statement, as reported on page 5418 of Hansard for last Friday. He deliberately said that it is the western provinces which are impeding progress in training. 1 suggest that is a false statement; nothing which he has said in the last two minutes substantiates it.
Let me move to disadvantaged people. Has the minister made a comparison of the success of provincial manpower departments versus Canada Manpower centres in terms of
their ability to place disadvantaged people in this country, those who are disadvantaged because of age or physical handicaps, women and native people? Which agencies of government, provincial agencies or federal government ones, have the best record in the country today?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I point out to the hon. member who seems to be here to defend the provincial governments, a role to which he is welcome, that in the very famous apprenticeship program in the province of Alberta, of which he is so proud, less than 1 per cent of the enrollees are women.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I suggest to the minister that that situation is true across the country, as we have discovered, and in fact in some places it is even less. If he looked at Government of Canada apprenticeable trades in some government departments, I do not think he would find anything about which to be proud.
There is a great deal of fear growing in Canada. The tone of the minister's speeches seems to imply that he intends to interfere with provincial jurisdiction in the area of education. I would like to ask him if he can clarify for us whether or not it is his intention, over time, to take unto the federal parliament responsibility for many educational endeavours which are in the laps of the provinces under the present constitution.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, we know how easily the hon. member opposite gets frightened. I do not think most Canadians share his well-developed sense of apprehension. I have never indicated I intend to take over the jurisdiction of education, nor does this government intend to do that. In many cases we have been quite concerned that the provincial governments have not lived up to some of their responsibilities. If the hon. member recalls, we had a discussion in this House on Friday concerning that very problem. In many cases we were being asked to provide opportunities to ensure there were basic skills. This was an area which properly fell within provincial jurisdiction but it was not being satisfied.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member that the area of training is one which is shared by levels of government and with industry itself. Many of the problems we face in getting people into areas where skill shortages exist begin in the primary and secondary schools where there is lack of counselling. We have worked in a very co-operative fashion with a number of provincial governments to overcome that problem. In my own province of Manitoba we have worked with the provincial government to establish resource centres and choice programs so that young people can receive the kind of counselling and career choices which they so desperately need.
We have absolutely no interest in developing major confrontations with the provinces, as long as they are prepared to co-operate with us. Co-operation is a two-way street. It must work in a joint fashion. But there are problems which arise because someone says, "We will take your money but we will not take any accountability for it; you just give us the money
December 8, 1980

and we will spend it." As a result they do not agree with some of the basic principles that we have as a federal government. We are not prepared to accept that.
By the way, I would like to point out for the enlightenment of the hon. member, since I know how interested he is in getting proper information, that when he said the position of the apprenticeable trades in Alberta is no different from anywhere else, he was wrong. In the area of apprenticeship the present figure for women in Alberta is .9 per cent compared with 4.7 per cent in Ontario, 6.9 per cent in Newfoundland and 5.7 per cent in British Columbia. That is a substantial difference, I suggest, in terms of percentages-none of which is good enough. That is one reason why we have been quite insistent-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I thought you were bragging.


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member opposite tends to be skeptical. I would ask her to tell us what her party did when it was in government to promote the working of women in non-traditional fields. What programs did they introduce? Not one, Mr. Chairman.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A great deal more than you.


Lloyd Axworthy: No programs at all. No affirmative action, no training programs. Not one single program was introduced by the previous government to deal with the broadening opportunities for women.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We replaced all of your Outreach programs which you cut out.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 am prepared to accept the responsibility of this government but I think the hon. member opposite should look first at her own dismal record, which is not exactly great.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I continue to be amazed by the minister. Apprenticeable trades vary from province to province, according to their definition. I think in the provinces the minister was talking about he was including trades such as hairdressing and cooking.


Lloyd Axworthy: As they do in all of them.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think he may find some differences exist across provincial borders. I only have five minutes left but could the minister indicate to the House what he considers to be the primary barriers to mobility which exist in Canada today? What are the primary barriers to labour market mobility?


Lloyd Axworthy: I am very pleased the hon. member has left me four minutes in which to address such a large topic. I will try my best to be brief.
I think there are a variety of barriers to mobility. Certainly one of the most important barriers at the present time is the difference in standards which are set. We have attempted to work with the provinces to establish a red seal program which would certify trades in each of the provinces on a standard
Supply
basis. However, at the present time there is only a limited number of those trades which are so certified and there is a limited number of workers in those trades. It would be my ambition that we be able to work much more directly with the provinces substantially to extend the red seal program so that there could be common certification and a common standard set for the application of trades right across Canada. Again, that is something which we intend to discuss with the provincial ministers when we have an opportunity to meet them this spring. That is certainly one of the major barriers.
A second major barrier is basic human motivation and behaviour, in the sense of being tied to a community and developing the incentive to move. That is one reason we have attempted to enrich mobility grants up to a maximum of $4,500 to ensure that if there is an economic reason why someone is reluctant to move from where the jobs are declining to where they are expanding, that economic barrier could be reduced or eliminated. So the second major problem is overcoming some of the economic hurdles for people who decide to move.
The third area is the transfer of information so people will know where jobs are. Those people with certain trades but no work will be able to go to where work may be. We have introduced a national job bank, which is a computerized system that will be able to plug in the job vacancies right across Canada through computer terminals in major centres. Workers can then go and find out where work may be available in other parts of the country. Within the first two or three months there is already something in the range of 9,000 different placements on that job bank. The number will certainly grow beyond that. This gives us the ability to provide for an information transfer so people know that the job is there.
The fourth area, as we have pointed out, is major regulatory and legislative limitations imposed by both levels of government. We must work to eliminate those. At the provincial level there is the kind of Draconian legislation which we see in the province of Newfoundland where they totally exclude workers from other provinces, preventing them from moving in to work in the offshore fields. There is the construction legislation in the province of Quebec which also excludes workers from other provinces. There are regulations in the trade services and training areas which must be reworked in order to provide for common standards. We must provide that kind of mobility where legislative or regulatory barriers have been set up which people must try to get around.
Those are some examples of the kind of mobility barriers which we must work on. As I pointed out, they must be worked on in a variety of ways and in combination with levels of government and industry itself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could the minister explain to us what the difference is between the manpower regulations associated with the northern pipeline and the legislation passed by the Newfoundland government?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 believe that if the hon. member looks at the legislation he will find it does not provide

December 8, 1980
Supply
for exclusive hiring for the north, with a preference. That is the very major difference between the two pieces of legislation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We may explore that when we have more time later this evening. Out of the four major mobility problems the minister referred to, could he indicate which of those would be solved by the constitution legislation of 1980?


Lloyd Axworthy: We would hope that we can provide some solution to all of them. The charter of rights would establish a basic standard, a foundation upon which all governments and individuals would know that they have certain rights. Where there are impediments to that, such as the Newfoundland legislation, they could be struck down. But as the hon. member should know, because he is a member of the constitution committee, one of the other advantages of the charter of rights, whether or not it is in a non-discriminatory area, is that it will require governments to go back and check their statutes, their laws and regulations, to make sure that they conform to those precepts of the charter of rights. Therefore, they will have to make a complete re-evaluation to ensure that there is not, within their different standards or codes, that kind of impediment to choosing where they will work or live.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On Friday afternoon I asked the minister to read the brief in the Canadian Council on Social Development to the constitution committee. Has the minister taken the opportunity to read that? Is he saying to us he totally disagrees with their perspective and that they, in fact, are dead wrong? How can he make the statement he just made in light of the information which is contained in that brief?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it is not my function to agree or disagree with the Canadian Council on Social Development; it is the function of the hon. member who sits on the committee. The committee was established to receive briefs and representations, to sift through them, distil them, decide which is right and which is wrong and then to advise the House. As a member of this House I am quite prepared to put my trust and faith in that committee and the soundness of its judgment.
[TranslationJ


Mrs. Hervieux-Payette:: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say how pleased I am to have this opportunity to state the point of view of a woman who has returned to the labour market. As a member, 1 suppose I am part of the labour market, but I should say to my constituents and probably to all Canadians that for 11 years I was a full-time mother and that at the end of those 11 years I had to resume my studies and complete my training while I was still acting as a mother.
Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to make a few general comments as a woman who is now on the labour market, who left a job in the private sector after having worked in the public sector. As for whether a bill of rights should be included in the constitutional motion, my colleague opposite was asking a while ago if Canadian women found it essential to have such a
bill of rights. 1 should say that in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of women whom 1 have consulted so far in Canada, it is essential to include a bill of rights in the Canadian Constitution.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, one cannot claim that in 1980, after more than a hundred years, women have achieved equal status in the market place. There are many obstacles which Canadian women must overcome when they want to join or rejoin the labour force. Of course, one of these obstacles-which should not be one-is motherhood. The fact that they bring children into this world and thus contribute to Canada's future is not an asset but a liability for women who want to rejoin the labour force. Even their getting married is an obstacle, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry to say in 1980, without a bill of human rights enshrined in the constitution, with a somewhat limited tradition of equal rights under federal and provincial legislation, following some ten, 15 or 20 years of experience of a federal or provincial charter of human rights, I find the status of women deplorable. Mr. Chairman, Canadian women have still a long way to go before they can get equal pay for equal work.
In spite of the organizations which have been established and the legislation which has been adopted, I suggest that all governments, past and present, have failed in their duty to provide jobs to all Canadians, especially to women, who want to work, something to which they should be entitled as a right. Mr. Chairman, there is also a part of our charter of rights which deals with manpower mobility. I suggest that these provisions will benefit women. There are agreements under the red seal concerning tradesmen. We are all well aware that there are very few women involved in the various trades who are able to move from province to province. Some professions have acquired national status, like engineering, technology, and others. We must confess, however, that in some occupations which seem reserved for women, there exist important obstacles preventing them from securing employment. And 1 suggest that it is the federal government's responsibility to eliminate these obstacles partly or entirely.
With regard to job access, Mr. Chairman, 1 think the job-creation program should make it easier for women to get back onto the labour market, especially for those who have raised children and now have to help pay the cost of their children's education or those who became head of the family. Those women, Mr. Chairman, who are now in their forties, who were unable to attend school for very long, now find themselves at a dead end in that they are left with taking very low-paying jobs or else living on unemployment or welfare benefits. And I must say, Mr. Chairman, that in this day and age it is unthinkable that in a country like Canada about 70 per cent of single parent women and their children are getting welfare payments. Indeed there surely must be something missing in their education for the women to be in such a large number in that category. Mr. Chairman, 1 suggest we should dispel the impression too often given by the business community or even by government circles that women are parasites in society and
December 8, 1980

are eating away at government revenues through welfare payments. Mr. Chairman, I say women live on welfare not by choice but by obligation and because of discrimination in the labour market.
1 believe employment and manpower programs for the '80s must be studied in light of the economic growth that we will witness. Yes, Canada is a country with a great potential. We have tremendous possibilities in the field of energy, we have natural resources in large numbers and we have manpower, people who can join the labour market, who in fact are already in the labour force and who represent tremendous human capital. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in the last ten years, Canada has been one of the countries whose employment rate of growth has been considerable, one of the highest among the members of the OECD. Between 1970 and 1974, the annual rate of growth was 3.5 per cent, and according to forecasts, it will be 2 per cent from 1980 to 1984, and 1.7 per cent from 1985 to 1989. Despite those forecasts, Mr. Chairman, it must be recognized that there will be a shortage of workers in the labour market. On the other hand, I should like to give some figures to show the evolution of women's role in the labour force. In 1955, they represented only 19.4 per cent of the work force; by 1980, at this point in time, they represent 45.9 per cent of it and by 1985, forecasts have it that women will represent 51 per cent, almost the same percentage they represent in terms of population.
Mr. Chairman, I feel it is important to study employment and immigration from two angles; how we will make up for shortages in the 1980s, and how and toward what work women should orient their efforts in the labour force. On the one hand, immigration can be one source of workers; on the other,
1 feel that women working in larger numbers can fill the other 50,000 jobs the present work force would be unable to fill.
Those sectors now under development, that is high technology, those in which skilled workers can find employment, where salaries are higher, where jobs are more secure, are those which at the present time are probably the least accessible to women. Speaking of the major developments in Canada, let us mention the James Bay project where women worked almost exclusively in the traditional fields, where they held clerical jobs and were the object of, let us say, Mr. Chairman, a certain amount of sectorialization not to say discrimination.
Indeed, well paid positions at James Bay were seldom open to women yet in future development, in the development of gas and oil resources, in the development of the tar sands, projects as important as Cold Lake in Alberta will generate from 8,000 to 10,000 jobs. What kind of positions are these projects going to create? First, they will be specialized jobs such as welding, machinery and in these specialized jobs, Mr. Chairman, there will be very few women, unfortunately. Women could perform
Supply
welding tasks, but they do not get the necessary training to do that kind of work. We know there will be growth in these areas over the next ten years and it is in this area that female labour force training should take place.
In 1980 only 1 per cent of Canadian women were apprentices in the area of non-traditional jobs. In adult vocational training women made up 42 per cent of the enrolment yet only 862 women were directed towards non-traditional jobs compared to 35,000 men. Where is the deficiency, Mr. Chairman?
I do not think there would be much difficulty for women to learn those trades of welders, drillers, programmers, key punch operators, all trades which provide stable employment and are jobs of the future. What programs does the minister propose to correct this situation? At present there is the on-the-job training program which, I think, could be greatly extended. It is a very progressive program, especially with respect to Quebec which has not yet taken full advantage of it. Quebec employers could indeed apply for the grant which pays up to 75 per cent of the salary, for up to 52 weeks, at a weekly rate of $185. In fact, 3,500 Canadian women, Mr. Chairman, could benefit from this program.
What efforts will be made to attract female workers in these areas which provide interesting jobs and are a good source of manpower for employers? I think that this area, Mr. Chairman, calls for joint action. The federal government must make its concerns known to the business community, unions, teaching institutions, women's organizations, so that all those concerned can join in the effort to publicize these on-the-job training programs. In order to ensure that women make a smooth entry into the labour force, there are other measures I think, Mr. Chairman, which must be taken and one of those which will be crucial to our economy in the years ahead is the development of private daycares in industry with the help of government, or of public daycares set up in schools which would provide ideal settings for this and which, in any case, are emptying year after year.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak of another measure which is essential to Canadian working women. I am referring specifically to the last brief by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which stated that we must do away with the maternity leave benefits provided by unemployment insurance. I am astounded that the chamber of commerce made no mention of the possibility, by the same token, of eliminating sick leave for workers. I think that unemployment insurance benefits now paid are the least that can be done to encourage maternity leave and that they should at least remain at the same level and preferably be increased. That is why I ask and suggest to the minister that he should consider with his colleagues the possibility of extending maternity leave into unpaid maternity leave of at least 12 months renewable for a second year. This type of maternity leave policy, which provides for job security for the mother or the father, would certainly be in line with a harmonious population increase

December 8, 1980
Supply
policy for Canada. It would be a question, Mr. Chairman, so as not to frighten the chambers of commerce or the employers, not so much of protecting the employee's job but rather the employee's employment. Furthermore, 1 think that this type of leave should apply in cases of adoption.
1 think that among the steps the Minister of Employment and Immigration should take to encourage the return to work of mothers, flexible hours can promote the harmonization of working conditions for the spouses, particularly for those who have children and who should finally lead a harmonious family life. Furthermore, economically, I think that those flexible hours make it possible to relieve traffic, reduce absenteeism and offer several other advantages which were demonstrated by numerous studies.
Another area the Minister of Employment and Immigration should reflect upon more deeply is time sharing. At the present time I think that there are many barriers as far as time sharing is concerned. We should first enable employers not to completely absorb the problems of fringe benefits twice and to have fiscal policies which would make that formula possible and which would enable families who need an additional salary, to have the additional income the second spouse can bring to the family without jeopardizing the education of children.
Mr. Chairman, having been deprived of this myself and having had to devote several years of great effort and spend especially a considerable amount of money, I suggest the government and particularly the Minister of Employment and Immigration should introduce fiscal measures related to training at the technical, college and university levels. I think discussions should be held with the Minister of Finance with a view to allowing working spouses to write off tuition fees incurred for the training of the spouse who must go back to school to further his or her education; I believe such a program is a necessary supplement to an employment policy. Indeed, I point out to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that such training leaves are recommended by the International Labour Organization, and also that in some countries, such as France, people are granted training leave every seven years. For a young country like Canada I am not asking for educational leave every seven years, but we must at least be favourable to the idea of facilitating the return to work of women who were denied secondary, collegiate and university education.
I now come, Mr. Chairman, to the types of programs recognized in the charter of rights the government is proposing in the resolution on the constitution. They are the affirmative action programs. 1 think both the public and private sectors should now insist on the implementation of such programs. Up to now three departments have agreed to implement affirmative action programs. They are the Secretary of State, the Public Service Commission and the Employment and Immigration departments. It is a very good and worthy undertaking but I think the department should let us know when other
departments will join in the program, when Crown corporations will have to carry on affirmative action programs. I would also like the minister to tell us when he is going to put pressure on his colleagues about the government's contracts with those who supply it with the goods and services it needs to the tune of $6 billion each year. Those companies would not be forced-because I think that word is pejorative-but would have the advantage of participating in a positive action program. In other words the fallouts from projects like the F-18 and the frigates and all other federal government projects would also benefit women and all jobs in the field of advanced technology like aeronautics would not be reserved exclusively to men.
Furthermore, the federal government sets funds aside for the creation of jobs every year. This year the government will spend $100 million to that end. I would like the minister to tell us how much of that sum will go toward the creation of jobs for women. On the other hand, Mr. Minister, I would say that one of the major difficulties experienced by women who want to go back to work or join the labour force is a certain lack of information within women groups or in private employment offices or in training centres.
I think the federal government should promote the hiring of women through good advertising programs, for instance, the program for on the job training in non-traditional trades. 1 think those programs are not readily accessible to women who are at home or who are looking for a job. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to my personal experience in that whole issue of on the job training and hiring which is very positive and in my own riding, which gives me a-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but her time has now expired.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Chairman, may I conclude?
The experience of my own riding of Mercier has demonstrated that women can weld, do iron bending, to the satisfaction of employers, and also in Japan those experiences are very positive. I ask the minister whether he could answer my previous questions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us a quick summary on the philosophical differences between Canada Manpower centres in Canada and the employment centres run by the state of California?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, 1 think the minister might find that employment centre operations which are run by the provinces in Canada are more similar to those run by the state of California than they are to the ones run by Canada Manpower. Could the minister tell me what he feels is the major


Lloyd Axworthy: Not right away, Mr. Chairman.
December 8, 1980

difference between provincial government employment placement operations and federal government employment placement operations? What is the difference in philosophy?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the major difference is that the provincial employment centres are restrictive and ours cover the entire country. We attempt to provide services for individuals right across Canada to make sure there is full opportunity and access. The provincial centres cater to their own populations and to specific industries only.
If the hon. member wants to argue for a restrictive manpower service run by the provinces, then he is welcome to it. But we on this side of the House happen to feel, consistent with our own philosophy, that this country survives and continues to exist by a national approach and a shared national approach. Therefore, we will continue to operate a manpower service for all Canadians.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could the minister confirm-I will give him another minute to think-that he believes that the philosophical differences are in the area of a restrictive and limited manpower service, that is, between the way in which provinces run their manpower placement services and the way in which the federal government runs its manpower placement services? Is that the minister's state of knowledge?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am not here to debate the state of the knowledge of one member over another. I try to do my best, and I am sure the hon. member tries to do his best. I simply pointed out that they are restrictive to the extent that those services only operate within provincial boundaries. They cater only to the population within finite limits. That is why there are provinces, and that is why we need a national government to make sure there is the ability to transcend those provincial boundaries and not to have the country fragmented into jurisdictions with fences between them. It is to make sure that a Canadian in Manitoba who wants to move to Alberta knows there is a way of finding out whether there is a job there and that there is a mobility grant to move him there, and training is available which may be useful in both places so he could move back and forth. That is the difference.
Sometimes the hon. member expressed amazement. Sometimes we find it amazing that he and others like him have such a limited and restricted view of this country. They see it only in terms of its provincial boundaries and not in terms of its national focus.
I suggest that if we are to go through a mutual educational process during these hours together, it may be well worth while for the hon. member to think about his philosophical basis, which it seems to me is totally parochial and provincial in scope, with the assumption that without question provincial governments do things better. Provincial governments do some things very well. There are very good provincial governments. I was a member of a provincial assembly for seven years. I took a great deal of pride and a great deal of interest in that particular occupation. However, I came to one
Supply
conclusion, namely, there are things provincial governments simply cannot do.
If we are to hold this country together, there must be a strong national government which can provide services, resources and facilities for Canadians regardless in which region or province they happen to live. That is a real difference. So if we are going to exchange philosophies, I suggest that the hon. member has a few things to learn as well about what this country is all about.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, let me tell the hon. minister that I have worked in different regions of the country, perhaps in more regions than he has and for a longer period of time. I care about Canada at least as deeply and maybe more deeply than he does. I understand clearly that we are free men and women who enter into social contracts to work together.


An hon. Member:: It doesn't look like it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There is a great deal of resentment of a central government which operates under the guise of being strong, which is doing irreparable harm to this nation. The government he supports is dangerously on that course.
I did not indicate to the minister in any way that 1 preferred the provincial model over the federal model. I think we need to utilize all the philosophies available in the placement field. I am beginning to discover, however, that the minister seems either unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that there are at least two major philosophies relating to replacement operations. In this country provincial governments tend to adopt a placement philosophy which is different from the federal one. Provincial governments tend to actualize it. There may be a good model by using both, with the federal government doing one thing and the provincial doing another. 1 am anxious to discover whether or not in the theoretical literature dealing with placement services the minister recognizes the two different philosophies. Then we might move on to an examination of what he sees as the strengths and weaknesses of them. Does the minister know what the two major philosophies are?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful if the hon. member would describe the philosophies he is talking about. In reading the literature, as the hon. member knows, there is a wide variety. There are not just two philosophies of placement services. There are several philosophies of placement services. There are almost as many philosophies of placement services as there are theoreticians of personnel policy. Everyone has designed his own will or his own pyramid. 1 would suggest if the hon. member wants an answer he should outline which two philosophies he is putting in contradiction.
There are several philosophies, several approaches, and all kinds of models. We would be very interested in hearing from him which one he thinks is appropriate, or which two he puts in contra-distinction. If he is referring to the distinction I raised before between the position taken by the government in his own province, which is that of assuming local preference, versus one where we think there should be equal opportunity,

December 8, 1980
Supply
then there is a major difference and I do take issue with that idea.
I do believe that one should not be judged by one's geographical location, and if there be exclusions, monopolies or restrictions put on people because of sex, age, or because they live in another location; I do not think this country is formed purely by geographical boundaries. Clearly, one of the problems we have faced in Canada, whether it is in training or employment programs, has been discrimination based upon sex, race or ethnic background. Those are the discriminations which we think must be overcome if we are to provide for full mobility, not just in a geographical sense across Canada but also in a vertical sense so that people can move into occupations that have been denied to them in the work place.
The hon. member's colleague from Kingston has rightly argued that for generations women have been denied proper opportunity for access to a full range of jobs and proper pay. Slowly, that is a recognition which this country is reaching. We have denied equal opportunity to 51 per cent of the people in Canada.
We, the government, declared in our throne speech that we want to end that discrimination. It will take time. It will not happen in the miraculous fashion which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands prescribes, even though she and her government did not do much about it when they were in office. But that is history. Nevertheless, it will take some time and it will take some effort, but we are committed to that principle. We want to see it implemented, but we cannot implement it if the contrary policy, put forward by certain provincial governments, as the hon. member proposes, does not even recognize that there is that kind of discrimination. They say there cannot be discrimination because theirs is a province where discrimination does not exist. By the stroke of a pen they eliminate it, even though it is a very real factor.
1 suggest the hon. member read some of the court cases brought by Indian bands in his province against his provincial government on the affirmative action question of resource projects. If he read those court statements and briefs submitted by the native bands, he would see how wrong is the decision of his province. It has served to deny many native people in that province opportunity to those resource projects. If that is the discrimination he is talking about, 1 am prepared to say those governments are wrong. The approach we take is to promote equal opportunity of people, geographically, between sexes, races and backgrounds, is the right one and we intend to continue promoting it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I bring to the minister's attention the statutes of the province of Alberta. Here is our human rights act. It had a lot more force in law than anything his government has done in the past 17 years to protect the rights of individuals. I come back to the theme. The minister has a habit which is well known in this House. When he does not have a knowledge base, he talks about something other than the question which has been asked. I specifically asked the minister how many
dollars in the estimates before us within his Canada Manpower centres are devoted to the placement of handicapped people.


Lloyd Axworthy: Again, Mr. Chairman, this is information we will attempt to find out. It really is such a niggardly request that it defies description, that you can separate out of the amount of estimates that amount allocated to one group of people. Our employment centres provide multi-regional services for a wide variety of people. When someone comes to them, the counsellor does not say, "Because you are not handicapped, I cannot serve you". They serve people of all kinds, descriptions and needs, every day in the placements they make. The number this year was close to a million registrations.
We do not ask people what their background is. We do not deny them access. Nor do we say we have a special allocation, that counselling or placement service is pigeonholed for only one group of people. If we did that, the first to scream about an inefficient operation would be members opposite. They would say there are rows and rows of counters with people waiting for someone to walk in the door.
We have tried to provide programs to aid and assist those with handicaps. We provided a major program of changing the physical facilities within our employment offices to ensure easier access. We established an affirmative action program. Part of the group which will get more equal opportunity are those who are handicapped. In a short period of time we will be announcing a special employment program geared specifically to those with handicaps. We are trying to target where it is needed.
It is really not possible to respond to the question the hon. member asks. Frankly, just to save a lot more time, I will tell him that we will not try to find out exactly how much. However, we will tell the hon. member how much we spend on employment programs, training and placements, what we do in terms of Outreach programs, all of which are designed to help different groups of people. We will not try to do a time value study as to what one of our employment counsellors in an office in Swift Current spends percentage-wise dealing with people with handicaps simply to satisfy the curious curiosity of the hon. member opposite.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, that reply speaks to something pretty troublesome. I think the information available in the world will tell us very clearly that there is a proportion of the population in Canada which has extreme difficulty in becoming employed. There is a lot of research evidence which indicates that resources specifically allocated to those who are strongly disadvantaged are in fact paying off for individuals and for society. Whether the minister knows it or not, he has been touching on the major philosophical difference between employment services run in the state of California and most Canadian provinces and those run by the Canada Employment Centre.
It seems logical that resources specifically designated in at least our larger communities to assist physically handicapped
December 8, 1980

people in securing employment, in the first instance going out and visiting employers to find potential jobs, are different from the one the minister outlined and one which should be considered over time.
Let me ask a similar type question. What kinds of special services are provided in Canada Employment Centres for those who cannot read either English or French?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, we have translators on call for those who have special language needs.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can the minister tell me what kinds of special services exist for people who cannot read?


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We are using the hon. member as a test case in this respect. Material is available in braille for those who are blind. Special services are provided in that area. For the illiterate, we have the basic skills-training programs, plus many of the LEAP projects which are available for the upgrading of skills. 1 remind the hon. member that education is under the responsibility of the provincial governments. The primary and secondary school systems are charged with the task of providing basic reading skills. It is a task they fulfil to the best of their abilities. We attempt to supplement them with special programs such as a "Choices" program and counselling services. It is a provincial responsibility supplemented only when we get special needs programs, such as the Outreach program, LEAP, special programs for native training and basic skills training. All those programs are for those with problems.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The minister moved to training programs that exist, some in co-operation with provincial governments and some of them alone. My question is directed toward the services provided by Canada Employment Centres, the placement services for people who cannot read or write.


Lloyd Axworthy: As I tried to outline to the hon. member, we do not discriminate against those who cannot read or write. If someone comes into our office and wants to find a job, we have a counsellor who is prepared to sit down and make an assessment of that person's skills and abilities and the types of job that will suit that person. They are available on a local and regional level. We can plug them into a job bank. If they require retraining, we advise them where that can be obtained. If the basic handicap they face is illiteracy, we recommend programs available in their region which will help overcome their problem. Those are the kinds of services we specifically provide for those with a deficiency. I repeat that the service is provided to anyone who walks in the door.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can the minister, in light of the last five or ten minutes, indicate why, in his opinion, one of the fastest growing occupational groupings in Canada today is private placement services and why there has been such an explosion
Supply
of placement services run and funded by provincial governments? In light of his assertion that providing services to everyone should be something that this House supports and seconds, could the minister indicate why he thinks we have this phenomenon of rapid increases in private placement activities, and why we have this rapid increase in provincially-funded placement activities?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest one basic reason is that the occupational structure of Canada has diversified. There is far more demand in occupations with specialized needs than there was ten or 15 years ago. It is essential in many cases to provide very highly specialized services for those highly specialized needs. Our programs tend to be broader in their base and we do not deny the value or the utility of other kinds of services. We still provide the basic placement services and, by the way, save private industry hundreds of millions of dollars by the provision of those services. Industries often ask what do we do for them? We provide them with their basic employment services right across Canada saving them an awful lot of money in doing that, and it is money well spent.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Chairman, prior to launching into the subject of unemployment insurance and a myriad of questions arising therefrom, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a few recent remarks by a former member of this House, the former chairman of the Conservative caucus. These are remarks concerning labour mobility, hiring preferences and the effect upon these, if any, of certain sections of the proposed constitutional resolution. These remarks which, in my considered opinion, constitute irresponsible, ill-considered and mischievous scare-mongering of the worst kind, attempted to suggest that key mobility and rights sections of the proposed constitutional resolution might have the effect of, one, outlawing the closed shop and union hiring; two, preventing mutual agreements providing for a minimum of 10 per cent local hiring access on major hydro projects, for example; and, three, and this one might really blow some minds, disallowing a company, Cominco in this case, from giving hiring preference to the qualified sons and daughters of employees.
I am sure the minister appreciates that working people and Canadians generally are already facing enough insecurities without having to suffer such partisan and self-serving drivel. I am not inexperienced in these areas and, in fact, have spent considerable time dealing with issues of hiring practices, local preferences and studying the history of "freedom of association" clauses in other jurisdictions. It is a non-issue as far as the United States court rulings on union shop rights are concerned.
Would the minister briefly comment on these three Conservative "red-herring" claims, and hopefully help put an end to the needless anxieties and false counsel being spread by members of the Conservative party?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, that is a welcome invitation. I think we have already had an opportunity to see some examples this afternoon without having to go to the former chairman of the Conservative caucus to find one. I would only

December 8, 1980
Supply
make one brief comment. At this time we have to be very careful of what we say. There has been a tendency for people to exaggerate, to take partisan stands and blow them into deep and abiding divisions.
Canada has always been a country where there have been regional differences, and in my own part of the world there has been a history of grievances. But 1 have deeply regretted the way in which those historical facts have tended to be massaged or blown into something which really is not there. It is an attempt to suggest that somehow the federal government is working against the interest of one region. That is a very dangerous game to play because it can, over a period of time, become a conventional wisdom and people tend to believe they are no longer served by the national government because they are told so often.
If there is any way in which we can ensure the continuation of this country, it is to ensure that people have a right to choose where they want to work and where they want to live. We have to make sure there is a proper balance between the peculiar and distinctive services a provincial government can provide and the broad-base national services that a federal government must supply. The history of this country has been a continuing debate on how we provide for that balance between the two levels of government.
To comment on the hon. member's statement, the best we can do as a House is to deplore that kind of comment, and be a little more diligent in trying to tell the truth, be a little more careful in how we seize upon partisan differences to try to exploit them and, at the same time, putting in motion these self-fulfilling prophecies.
1 think a lot of the anger in western Canada could be diluted very quickly if there was a greater attempt to provide proper and accurate information on what is going on. One thing that frightens me is exactly that kind of statement. As I read them, in some cases put forward by some of our colleagues, or by members of some of the provincial houses, and certainly by some of those who lead what they call so-called separatist movements, 1 find they are engaging in serious distortion. No one will benefit from this if it continues. 1 appreciate the member drawing that to my attention, but 1 think it is something of which all members of this House should be sensitive. We have a great responsibility in this House to be very careful and very responsible in what we say, and not to engage in that kind of extremism.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I thank the minister for that response. I think it is a reasonably accurate one.
As a rule, would the minister generally agree that social insurance programs in the main should provide the greatest benefits to those who, in his own words, "need help the most", and that the taxes and revenues raised to pay for these programs should generally be levied according to ability to pay? I think a simple yes or no would suffice.


Lloyd Axworthy: In general, Mr. Chairman, I agree with that remark.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I would gather, then, that the minister would agree that a program, a program which pays the greater benefits to those who have most income but who pay less, that such a program would be unfair. Would that be a correct assessment of the minister's judgment?


Lloyd Axworthy: It would be more fair to me if the hon. member told me which programs he is referring to so I could be better able to respond to the specific program, and not deal with generalities.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I will state it another way. I would gather the minister would also agree that a program where those recipients with lowest incomes pay the most for less benefits, that a program of that nature would be unjust. Would that be correct? I have put it in another way so that it can be as clear as possible, and I think we should establish the principles first.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, again working on the basis of existentialism I would prefer to have the circumstance and the case cited for me so that I would be able to respond more accurately to the hon. member rather than just proceeding on broad principles. I think we agree on the principles. We should now get down to case studies.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Chairman, assuming by that reply that we do agree on the principles, I should like briefly to point out that under our unemployment insurance system, which is the social insurance plan to which I was referring in my comments-I am sure the minister suspected as much because the description was certainly accurate-for a person earning $6,000 a year, unemployment insurance will cost $18 more per year in 1981, but he is entitled to collect $8 per week less than he would have been entitled to collect in 1978. If he is unemployed for an average period, that is, 15 weeks average duration of unemployment, he will be paying $18 more for $120 less in benefits.
Second, the $12,000 earner, who is close to the average, in 1981 pays the same net amount for unemployment insurance protection as the $50,000 earner, yet he is entitled to collect $51 per week less.
I would just like to clarify the matter. The minister and his officials might be quizzing themselves as to my meaning, but I believe it was last June in discussion of Bill C-3 that I raised some of these topics. I recently brought some of the cost calculations up to date, including the actual cost, after taxes, of the premiums which people at various income levels pay for, relatively speaking, greater or lesser benefits. We find that in 1981 those with $8,000 earned income, for example, will make required unemployment insurance contributions of $144. Their net insurance contribution, therefore, will also be $144 because there will be no tax saving to them on the basis of deductions due to their income level. This is for a weekly entitlement of $92.
For a person with an earned income of $10,000 the required unemployment insurance contribution is $180. The $44 tax
December 8, 1980

saving due to deduction of the cost of the premium leaves a net unemployment insurance contribution of $136 to provide a weekly unemployment insurance entitlement of $115. They are paying less to get more.
Further up the ladder, a person with an earned income of approximately $20,000 has a required contribution of $295. The tax saving from deduction is $83, and for a net contribution of $212 the entitlement is $189. For exactly that same entitlement of $189, people earning $25,000 make a net contribution of $204 as opposed to $212, and persons with incomes of $50,000 make net contributions of $160, that is, $44 less, also for a benefit of $189.
It seems to me and to many others that we have a system which is totally upside down. Anyone who assumes himself to come under the classic definition at least of a small "1" liberal-maybe large "L" Liberals are not the same-a social reformer, a progressive person or what have you, would think that there is something extremely wrong with any social insurance program which turns all of the normal practices and concepts totally upside down. If there is a moment at the end of my remarks, I will ask the minister to attempt to deal with that situation.
I should like to mention one or two other issues briefly. One has to do with a practice that I mentioned last June 19, which used to exist in many industrial operations. I would like to hear the minister's comment on it. When there were lay-offs, arrangements were made within a given plant so that a senior person could choose to be laid off and allow a junior employee to continue working. To many people in the labour force and many in management that seemed to be a good idea for a multiplicity of reasons. One of those was an economic saving to the unemployment insurance program itself. It allowed young people who had recently entered the labour force, who needed work experience and who had to learn what it was like to earn a living to continue to work. God knows there seems to be enough around who could benefit from that kind of experience. It also allowed people with young families, low incomes, and small bank accounts to work and to gain increased experience and seniority in the labour force, and it allowed those who were older and perhaps trying to phase into the concept of retirement and into the practices of retirement to do so.
Why does it matter to the unemployment insurance program, to the government or to anyone, which of those two employees should be laid off and which should be working when, in all likelihood, the most experienced worker under the unemployment insurance program would probably have an easier time Finding a job elsewhere on a temporary basis than a junior employee with little work experience? I will stop now and give the minister an opportunity to answer.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member raises some very important points. They have given me some cause for concern primarily because over the years the Unemployment Insurance Act has gone through a wide and varying series of amendments sometimes totally out of joint with those which preceded them. The act at times took on the appearance of a Rube Goldberg machine. Some parts to which other parts
Supply
were not connected were functioning. It was for that reason that when I took over this ministry I asked for a complete and total review not only of the basic structure of the Unemployment Insurance Act but also of some of the underlying principles. One of those which is most important in that review is the question of redistribution of income and to what degree the act deals with equity as part of its program.
I admit that the reduction of benefits ratio from 66 per cent to 60 per cent was unfair when combined with an increase in premiums. Those two combinations worked out of sync with each other. There were other reasons for doing it, of course. One was that over the years the public purse percentage of the cost of the Unemployment Insurance Act had increased from 20 per cent to 40 per cent, so increasingly we were carrying a larger and larger percentage of the amount.
In some defence I point out to the hon. member that while waiting for the recommendations of the unemployment insurance review, we have taken certain steps to broaden the coverage. Perhaps the most important was the extension in the act of minimum insurability, from a 20-hour week to a 15-hour week, which brought some 200,000 part-time workers, 70 per cent of whom were female, under coverage. That was a fairly major extension, and I think it could properly be seen as an attempt to build more equity into the program to make sure there was not the elimination or the erasing of large groups of workers who were part-time but, nonetheless, permanent workers. They were permanently in the work force but not working the full 20 hours. We tried to extend the act that way to provide more fairness in that respect.
We have also tried to eliminate some of the more obvious discriminatory aspects of the act such as those which involve fishermen's wives. Under the program we now in a sense give them a full range of benefits.
Going back to the fundamental principle raised by the hon. member, that is presently being examined. We hope to put forward a report shortly after Christmas, certainly in January or February, and I believe he will see, once that review is completed, that there is a real attempt to straighten the system out and to make sure the principles of equity are recognized through the entire administration of the act.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that review will result in something more productive than the changes we have seen since 1978 which have been, in the main, extremely regressive. I know some hon. members opposite have expressed that feeling rather eloquently on earlier occasions.
One final item has to do with income tax deductions with respect to unemployment insurance. Is it not possible for the government to consider holding back deductions for tax purposes from unemployment insurance cheques and allowing those to be paid at the end of the year, on whatever basis? When one is unemployed one is least able to pay taxes or any other premium, especially when benefits are reduced. This is true even of someone who enjoys a rather healthy annual income.

December 8, 1980
Supply
In this day and age people tend to live up to their income on a month to month basis, or very close to that, it becomes very difficult, and a great hardship on many families, especially with children when, at the time when their income is already being reduced by at least 40 per cent, if not by more in many cases, they find the extra bite taken out. No one objects to paying their fair share of taxes based on their annual income, but it is an unnecessary hardship, I suggest, that that tax be deducted at the time of the year when they can least afford it. I will certainly welcome any assurance that the government will seriously consider making that kind of reform.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the proposition put forward by the hon. member would not be legal under the Income Tax Act, and therefore that is one reason we do not do it. I suppose there is also the practical reason that people have to pay their tax some time. It is a question of whether it is easier to take it on a monthly basis or in a lump sum at the end. Personally I find it a little easier when I am nicked each month, it does not seem to hurt as much, but that is a personal preference.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Not when you do not have a pay cheque!


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that 1 should first of all point out to the committee that there is only one representative of the official opposition present for a debate which is very important for all Canadians.
First, Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon. minister and his officials for the opening in September of the new unemployment insurance office in Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, in the Gaspe Peninsula. This area of northern Gaspe had been waiting for this office for many years and the claimants will no longer have to travel 100 miles or more to meet an official. Now that I have paid a few compliments, I would like to talk about some of the problems which exist in the Gaspe constituency. We should try together to find solutions.
I would like the hon. minister to note that some of the unemployed filed benefit claims in September and October and have yet to receive any benefits. It seems that there are more delays in Gaspe, even though there are some in the other unemployment insurance offices of my constituency such as Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and Chandler. Can the minister ask the people in charge of those manpower centres to do their utmost so that the claimants can receive their benefits before Christmas?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline an abnormal situation at the Chandler arbitration board. This board is the only one in the Gaspe Peninsula. The next nearest is located in Rimous-ki in the lower St. Lawrence area. The claimants who appeal the decision of an official must travel 150 miles and those from the Magdalen Islands must take the plane to come to Chandler. In 1979-80, this board included one chairman and two
representatives each of labour and management. Some of the hearings have had to be cancelled because management or labour were not represented. For one hearing scheduled on a Wednesday, one of the management representatives is on holidays and the other is available, so notices to appear are sent. On the day of the hearing, the single management representative is sick and the board is therefore unable to sit. The hearing is cancelled or else a member of the nearest arbitration board located in Rimouski is called.
So, besides paying the salary of this board member we must pay for a 250-mile round trip which comes to 500 miles, and postpone the nine o'clock morning session to three or four o'clock in the afternoon. Just think of these poor claimants who must travel 100 or 150 miles, pay for their extra meals and sometimes even for their hotel rooms. It is unacceptable that a claimant who appeals to the arbitration board should make a trip just to find out there is no meeting. To correct this situation, Mr. Chairman, I recommend the appointment of additional representatives, one for the employees, one for the employers, and also a chairman. So the acting chairman is already appointed and so is the employees' representative. The employers' division has yet to appoint a representative, male or female. 1 requested that a woman be appointed to that arbitration board and 1 do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the minister would object to the appointment of a woman on this arbitration board because she would be the only one in eastern Quebec.
Last week the last person was not yet appointed. So tonight I ask the minister to take the necessary action so as to make this arbitration board works properly in 1981 and in the future, that it is a board made up of two chairmen, three employers' representatives and three employees' representatives. Mr. Chairman, I think I would not accept in 1981 that the Chandler arbitration board meetings be cancelled again because there are not enough board members. If that should happen again after this warning, I believe that the department would have to pay for the extra travel expenses of claimants appealing to the arbitration board.
Now, I would like to say something about the community development projects program in Canada. In a letter which the minister sent to me on November 10, he stated:
On October 14, the Quebec government raised the following points with regard to the implementation of Canada community development projects in Quebec: the exclusion of specific organizations falling under the Intergovernmental Affairs Department Act, the exclusion of specific activities such as construction and those creating dependency and, finally, the consultation process.
Mr. Chairman, non-profit organizations in the Atlantic provinces are achieving very useful projects for the community, building houses and fishing shelters, and employers' associations in these provinces are not subject to construction regulations. In Quebec, construction work is subject to wages imposed by the labour department and the implementation
December 8, 1980

phase is carried out through the Quebec construction board bureau.
The pay schedule suggested by the Department of Employment and Immigration is the provincial minimum wage. For certains trades like carpenters and painters, communities cannot afford to pay construction bureau salaries. 1 therefore ask the minister whether he has entered into consultations with his Quebec counterpart to obtain building regulations exemptions for community development projects such as buildings and wharves, or as I said earlier, slips for fishermen's boats or community halls for Golden Age Clubs and farm-wives associations.
Certain local and regional initiatives that are very worthy cannot proceed in Quebec because of the salaries ordered by the construction bureau.
Another point 1 should like to make concerns the Unemployment Insurance Act. Under that act, the claimant must have made 20 contributions in the case of a first job to be entitled to benefits, or have worked 20 weeks if he returned to the work force and received no benefits during the last 52 weeks. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that in the Gaspe Peninsula and the maritimes, where the majority of jobs are of a seasonal nature, that 20-week entitlement period is too stringent. I would ask the minister whether he intends soon to introduce an amendment to the act, reducing the entitlement period from 20 weeks to 1 5. I will give the minister an opportunity to answer these few questions, and I will put another one later on.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, may I say in response to the hon. member's questions that, first of all, I understand well the problems faced in the Gaspe region with the board of trustees, because it is a region where it is difficult to provide a full range of services. The only difficulty up to now has been the relatively low workload. I can promise the hon. member that we are looking at it and we will attempt to provide some additional services to ensure that his constituents are properly looked after. By the way, 1 take some comfort in the comment of my colleague that in the beautiful area of Rimouski there is a woman commissioner and member already in place. We will follow her prime example.
On the question of changing the act itself respecting the re-entry phase, it is being examined as part of the review about which I spoke earlier. We hope to have the review ready for public discussion in the House within a few weeks after Christmas. At that time I know the hon. member will have a chance to look at our proposals to alter the manner in which re-entry weeks are allowed for members coming back into the work force.
Finally, on the question the member raised about the delay in payments, as he knows we suffered a serious slowdown as a result of the strike. We are attempting to catch up as well as we can. I will ask the regional director to make a report on the
Supply
member's region and get it to him by the next week to see how we can catch up. 1 believe within another two or three weeks we should be almost fully caught up, but I will ask for a report to assure the member that that is the case.
t Translation]


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Chairman, 1 think I have another case to submit to the minister. In 1979, the Department of Employment and Immigration, in co-operation with the Secretary of State and the Quebec minister of communications authorized a project entitled "Resource groups for community media", more especially radio, and that project bears No. 00IN-17-32. The program, according to a letter I received from the minister, was meant to be as follows. Its primary purpose was to increase employment opportunities for young unemployed. When I checked the names of the individuals who were hired, I realized that they are not young unemployed, but most of them are full-time station employees who were rehired under that program.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest to the minister this evening that if he is to enter into new agreements with the Quebec government and community organizations in Quebec, he should formally instruct his officials to check and make sure that the standards of the program are complied with and that the personnel hired under that program are not full-time station or organization employees but young unemployed, as provided under the program.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's question is quite specific and detailed. I will have to look at it specifically, get an explanation and report back to him.


Mr. Schellenberger:: Mr. Chairman, I came into the chamber just as the minister was answering some questions on the affirmative action programs in Alberta. Perhaps he will have to set me straight because I may not have heard everything, but I believe he said that in some way a bill before the Alberta government infringed upon native people taking advantage of some affirmative action programs.
As I understand the problem, it lies within the statutes of the province of Alberta, in the bill of rights. In the court cases which took place, the judges ruled that the statute of the province took precedence over the affirmative action programs in place. They quoted section 6 of the act which indicated that no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ any person or discriminate against any person with regard to employment or any term or condition of employment.
The province realized that there was a need for affirmative action particularly when it looked at the various large plants in the province, and the act that those plants were in areas where there were large unemployed groups of people such as native people on reserves, and the only way to do it was to pass another act in the legislature that affirmative action programs could take place in the cabinet signed the necessary docu-



December 8, 1980
Supply
merits. If I am wrong, I would like to know about it, because I would like to discuss it with the province. As I understand it, the province is willing to undertake affirmative action programs in those areas, but given the bill of rights it had to take the necessary procedure to overcome that provision in the act.
I have travelled through those projects and I understand, particularly in the Syncrude project, that there has been great success with those programs, that many native people have been employed. Hopefully that will take place in other plants if the two governments can get together regarding the construction of those plants. Am I correct in my assumptions, or can the minister add anything to them?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, essentially the member is correct that under the Alberta human rights act the only way in which there could be an exception and one could introduce an affirmative action program is by a specific order in council of the provincial cabinet. The native bands of the province have challenged the actual human rights act of Alberta by saying that it is unconstitutional. If the charter of rights we are discussing and debating presently is passed, it could very well be that that act would be unconstitutional. 1 am not a lawyer, so I will not judge it.
I also am concerned-and perhaps this is where the member missed some of the discussion-that the government of Alberta is even attempting to apply that standard against federal direct employment programs in which we have introduced the affirmative action principle. At this point the government of Alberta is not prepared to provide us with an exception on that. There is some ongoing discussion between our officials to overcome that problem.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: With respect to the community service project in LEDA, is there any breakdown of the amounts and when these programs will be coming forward? Will they be extended to status native people? Is there a breakdown between the status and nonstatus Indians and Metis? What are the successes of these programs with respect to those groups? The challenges in the city centres are the same in many instances for those groups and 1 would be interested if the minister could give some indication of the success of that program and in what areas most of the native people are taking advantage of that program.
Mfr, Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful statement. He has very well summarized what many of us in western Canada know, regardless of our party or background, that is that if there is any one issue that we must address in the next few years it must be the economic and social situation of the native people.
In dealing with his specific question, in most of the programs we do not make a strong distinction between status and non-status Indians. In the area of community development projects we do, because we have allocated additional funding that would be applied to constituencies where there are reserves. So there is additional funding and we do take it into account there. In the areas of the community service programs, the LEDA programs and the Outreach programs, they are pretty much dependent upon the objectives and the purpose of the program. It has nothing to do with whether someone carries a card designating their status or whether they do not. To give you an example, in the hon. member's own province we spent close to $600,000 on Outreach programs. This is a service which is basically run by native people themselves to provide information and access on the reserves and in their communities to get information on job requirements and training opportunities.
The hon. member was good enough to give us the benefit of his thoughts, and I would like to return the compliment, if I might. Perhaps there has never been a better opportunity than now to address seriously the problem of native people in the west with respect to economic activity being created in the resource boom. If there has ever been a time when we can break through the enormous wall which has prevented native people in western Canada from obtaining an economic stake in the community, it is now.
One of the real tasks of federal and provincial governments, as well as of the private sector, all of us who are involved in these massive investments in pipelines, construction projects and new mines, is to recognize that if we do not move now we will never be able to do it. The time is now for us to make the effort. We must be careful to eliminate laws, regulations or practices which have prevented native people from entering the work force. As well, we must try to provide the incentives, training and support programs which would enable them to obtain the skills that are necessary. We tried to achieve this through the $10 million training program which we introduced last spring. We have also employed such programs as LEAP.
Supply
I also want to suggest to the hon. member that we are examining some of the options which are available to us under the western initiatives fund, a fund set up using the revenues from the resource base to be recycled back into western Canada. We should be looking at how we can use a substantial portion of those funds for the economic development of native people in the west in order to cut across the boundaries and apply the funds where they are needed. We want to create in their own communities the economic basis, the economic capacity and the economic services that would give them the ability to become self-sufficient in their own right. As chairman of the western cabinet committee which is looking at that prospect, I hope to consult with provincial governments and private groups in the west. I indicate to the hon. member that it is one of the options, one of the initiatives we are considering seriously, to break the back of that centuries-long problem which is a disgrace to all Canadians.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I think people from the western provinces will realize it is important that those people who had difficulty in the past take an active part in any large resource development which does take place. We are somewhat hindered at the present time because of the policies between the federal government and the provincial governments. The argument of whether the provinces should use more of their resource wealth to develop those kinds of economic strategy, or take the money from the province and recycle it through the federal government, is something we will discuss for some time. That is not the point I want to make.
My other question is this. Does the minister have a special team which consults with the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Department of Indian Affairs? Is there at the present time an even broader team or intergovernmental group dealing with the question of native unemployment and with developing new strategies for off-reserve native people? In the downtown area of my city there are many native women who require special counselling before they can enter a training program or learn a skill of their particular interest. Is there this kind of intergovernmental group dealing with native unemployment in the future and with new strategies for those people in the cities?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the secretariat of the social development committee has the responsibility of combining departments which are working in this field. Under that committee a special task force composed of deputy ministers has been organized to negotiate with western provinces on urban and native conditions. This task force is developing recommendations which will be presented through the secretariat to the cabinet committee on social development. So there is an attempt to combine and co-ordinate the various efforts to zero in on that particular situation.
I repeat, through some of our own programs there is a special division in the employment and immigration commis-

December 8, 1980
Supply
sion which deals with native employment issues. We have begun to put more emphasis on the aspect the hon. member has mentioned, that in the downtown areas of cities it is often the single parent native women who are the real problem. For example, we initiated a special Outreach program in Winnipeg to work with native women in the downtown area to relate them, for example, to the fashion industry and other employment opportunities. The project has been going for two months, and it is preparing its first report. As a result of that report, I hope that we will be able to expand this concept to other western cities.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned what is happening in his department. Is there also an interdepartmental group working on these problems, many of which lie in other departments? We are always seeking better co-ordination of the funds which are spent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not make it clear that the cabinet committee on social development, which is composed of ministers of the government whose departments relate to social development programs, is looking at that problem as a priority item. A secretariat is assigned to that cabinet committee and it is involved in a task force arrangement calling for a report to that cabinet committee, at which point the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Secretary of State, the minister for DREE and myself will get together to review the report and make recommendations back to the committee.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that clarification. We were in government for such a short period that I am not aware of all the intricacies.


The Chairman:: This will be the hon. member's last question.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I would like to question in a little more detail the $10 million allotted for the training program. I realize that it is in its developing stages, but the minister might be able to enlighten us as to how the program is going.
The most recent estimate I have, up to mid-November shows that 1,255 native people have enrolled in institutional training and 225 have enrolled in industrial training. Are these figures what the minister expected? Is he satisfied with the number of applicants, and how the program is going to date? Were many, or any, of the applicants refused? How much of the $10 million is accounted for to date?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the program started up over the summer months. We believe it is on target and I think the hon. member's figures are accurate in terms of the actual number of allocations. Our target throughout the program is 2,100 placements on the institutional side and 1,719 on the industrial side. We feel that with the projects now coming on stream we will be able to meet that target during the fiscal year. We are now at the stage where the largest number of projects are to be examined or approved during the next two or three months. It took the summer to make the program
available, to get the information out and get the proposals back.
[ Translation]


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure that I take this opportunity to give to the House my views on employment and immigration. First, I would like to mention the fact that this subject is of interest to me having been myself an employer for a good 15 years hiring personnel and acting as manager, mediator, pay clerk and doing all those other things good and bad that go with being the boss. Thanks to this experience I can state that we still have in Canada a potential and a labour force of exceptional quality provided we know how to use it with respect, care and intelligence.
When I speak of an intelligent use of this labour force, 1 mean the practical aspect of the working conditions, but I also mean the general framework of things in terms of employment policy and labour legislation. While I admit we must improve labour-management relations we must also take care of not giving in to over-regulation or what I would call an inextricable bureaucratic network of standards and regulations which in the end create more problems and headaches than improvements.
But first, Mr. Chairman, one word of warning: I am neither backward nor old fashioned. I do not want to turn back the clock. But allow me to make a few observations to prove what strikes me as meddling, pure and simple, on the part of governments, an interference that is unjustified and condem-nable. I am alluding here to that servile and degrading obligation for a worker to get a permit in order to earn his living, as is the case in the building trade in Quebec. Under the pretext of cleaning up the trade and setting quotas, supposedly to improve it, what happens in fact? Exactly the opposite. Yes, the situation is improved for a minute percentage of the work force but it is a nuisance for all the other workers. To get a permit, a worker must have put in at least 250 hours of work in the previous year in the construction trade, and to put in those 250 hours in the field of construction in Quebec, one needs a permit. One cannot make head or tail of it; it is as difficult to explain, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, as if I were to ask you why dogs do not have piles at this time of the year.
As I mentioned earlier, before becoming involved in politics I was an employer. People would be surprised, Mr. Chairman, if I told them how many times competent and well-intentioned applicants have come to my office to ask for a job knowing all too well in advance that they would have to face the injustices of the system. They knew they could not qualify but when you are hungry, when you are desperate, you will try anything. I could see them feeling uneasy, embarrassed, considering themselves quite guilty of having to ask for a job. Imagine the situation. A family man only asking for the possibility of
December 8, 1980

earning a living to support his wife and kids. It has become an illegal act to work, precisely in Quebec. The inconsistency, the irrational character and I would even say the abject complicity between provincial and federal laws literally deny people this right to work. It is forbidden to work, Mr. Chairman. It is no surprise then that we count so many unemployed. Lay-offs, yes these are called lay-offs, and we are now mass-producing unemployed people.
Let us now talk about improved control of workers by the construction bureau. In my riding of Temiscamingue, Mr. Chairman, whether in Rouyn, La Sarre, Ville-Marie or even Palmarolle, we have highly qualified men who are also hard workers. But do you know what happens? These people are sitting on the front porch while contractors who are doing construction works right across the street are forced to wait for the construction bureau to recommend to them workers who supposedly have their working permit.
So what happens? It is well known that summer is short in our area. The men who could work are sitting on their butt, machinery which could be put to work on earthwork and which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars remains idle, shining in the sun, and everybody is waiting for the good offices of the construction bureau. And then, when he receives the phone call from the construction bureau, the contractor rushes to call the recommended person, who supposedly holds a working permit. Do you know what happens? When he calls that person at home he is told he has been dead for two years. That is how things work. What a wonderful invention that construction bureau is, Mr. Chairman! I am sure that if Einstein were told, that would make him turn in his grave.
Some will say that came from Quebec. I agree, but 1 mention it simply in the hope that other provinces will not make the same mistake, and to show how one can be locked into a system thought out by thinkers, by those brainy birds who are paid $35,000 a year. They live way up there in the clouds. They certainly do not put themselves in the shoes, or should I say in the boots, of those whose everyday lives depend on the lucubrations of those gentlemen. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, between imagining a scheme in the comfort of well-heated offices and implementing it in the field there is, as the title of a movie says, "one bridge too far". That is why I say that rather than imposing all kinds of far-fetched procedures and restrictions upon workers, it would probably be preferable to give them a little bit of freedom of action. A person free to act is perhaps the best instrument to beat unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, work is forbidden in our area. Our legislation, although very fine in principle, cannot be implemented and is causing serious prejudice to the workers. As Julius Nyerere, the president of one African country whose name I forget said, "We, rulers, are often closer to those people who possess a second car than to those who need bread." It is easy for us to solve the problems of workers while sitting comfortably in our offices, getting a good salary, but let
Supply
us trade place with this man who does not have $100 in his pocket, who has outstanding payments and who, with Christmas coming, is trying to get a job. He is looking for a job, he finds one but he is forbidden to work because he does not belong to the system. This is simply disgusting.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I could have chosen to make an academic, tranquillizing speech, since it is much more pleasant and it disturbs people less, obviously, because thanks to rhetoric one can hide the truth and make us accept with a smile that we are walking on pavement when in fact we are tramping through slush. This exercise is frequently practised here in this Parliament. Labour legislation is far from perfect, Mr. Chairman. Those who succeed in finding temporary employment do not want to accept it because they will risk losing their unemployment insurance benefits and welfare payments. What happens because of this? People play cat and mouse with the law and do odd jobs on the side.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is outmoded in its present form. As everyone will admit, social conditions have changed a lot since the Unemployment Insurance Act was developed and passed in 1937. I do not have to tell the House that the morals, scruples and conscience of the public are now somewhat more flexible than in 1937. Some abuse the system and others suffer because of it. How can we solve the problem? I realize, Mr. Chairman, that there is no magic solution. First of all, 1 believe we should bring together in this Parliament those members who show a sincere desire to solve the problem, who have the ability to do so and who are knowledgeable about the issues. On both sides of the House, there are people who have been or still are involved in business and these are the people on whom we should call and whom we should bring together for two or three days. We would be surprised at the good ideas which could come of this.
Of course, if I had more time, I would tell the House what I personally think of this issue. Because of the little time at my disposal, I have to be satisfied with touching on the matter. For instance, if we tried to develop legislation, not only from a legal and bureaucratic point of view, but also the point of view of its application to real cases, this would give a more comprehensive view of the whole issue of the labour market and would give more access to employment by eliminating contradictions between some of our laws. Perhaps we should eliminate all social programs and replace them by a mailing of 24 postdated cheques once a year to all Canadians. Or still simpler funds could be credited to your account every month by a computer. When we know how many millions of dollars it costs every month to issue a series of cheques, it is just startling. Figures show clearly in black and white that it would not be more expensive and it would help us straighten out a situation by eliminating all unnecessary waiting, quarrels, humiliation for those who have to produce evidence and justify their applications. This simplification which would be fair to everybody would allow us to cut 60,000 jobs in the federal civil service.

December 8, 1980
Supply
This does not include provincial employees who would earn their basic wages and who could be much more productive in the private sector.
Thus, I would like to urge the minister to pursue his goals and try to improve the services provided to the unemployed by those offices in my riding. I am assured that the constraints, the delays suffered by the claimants are mostly due to the temporary physical organization and that as soon as the office will be relocated everything will be back in order. We know that employees are now divided into two offices in Rouyn, which tremendously complicates the operations. Those are the explanations I have been given. So 1 am prepared to give them a chance. But once the reasonable delay expires, if service is still inadequate they will see I can be very scathing.
They talk of temporary relocation, since the manpower centre will eventually be located in the new federal building to be started during winter or in the spring. As my old college buddy Jean de Lafontaine was wont to say, one must never count one's chickens before they are hatched. But take my word, this project which was promised in so many election campaigns will at long last see the day thanks to a Liberal government and a member of the right persuasion in the riding of Temiscamingue. The request for funds is now before Treasury Board, the last stage before tenders are called.
To conclude, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration for the boundless concern and dedication he has demonstrated from the moment he was appointed. It is because the Government of Canada is made up of Canadians of similar stature that we trust in the future growth and wealth of our country. Since I am still entitled to a couple of minutes, I should like to finish on a pleasant yet true note. Last night, as I was taking part in an official opening in a parish called La Reine which is in my riding way out in northwestern Quebec, 1 met two great old gentlemen, Mr. Bernard and Mr. Goulet, very likely the two greatest Liberals ever in this country, who told me, "You know, kid, there are some people here who claim that we are 'coloured' Liberals." We can tell you it is not so. It is not a matter of colour, just a matter of common sense. Mr. Chairman, I trust that the present government will make sure that it remains a matter of common sense.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I wish to thank the minister for the co-operation he has shown in a large number of immigration cases and to the community program which is to take place this fall. I appreciate that co-operation. Also I want to pay a tribute to the project managers in Edmonton, particularly to Miss Turn-ley who has shown herself to be highly qualified. We got to know her better because she was in charge of the Bow River projects. The minister can certainly be proud of the work she did.
For a moment or so I would like to deal with the situation of	I
the Indian and native people who are the greatest unused	I
source of manpower in Canada. We sometimes forget the	I
tremendous potential we have in these Indian and native	I
people.	I
The Alberta government is taking giant strides in trying to	H
help the Indian and Metis people to help themselves. In the	I
great Canadian oil sands project at Fort McMurray, we	I
established a type of college for training these people for	I
specific jobs. At the Syncrude project they had special on the	I
job-training programs for the Indian and Metis people. Most	I
of them became excellent workmen.	I
As to the point the minister raised, and which the member	I
for Wetaskiwin dealt with in regard to the bill of rights	I
stopping some projects in Alberta, that is correct. The Univer-	M
sity of Calgary has taken a special interest in Indian and Metis	I
people. Education has been taken to the reserves. Special.	I
training has been provided from Grade I up, if necessary.	I
Indian people have been accepted into the University of Cal-	I
gary without the usual qualifications and they have been given	I
training. If my memory serves me correctly, more than 27 of	I
them graduated with degrees. The University of Calgary now	I
wants to establish a native faculty headed by a highly qualified	I
native person. I have recommended this proposal to the Minis-	I
ter of Indian Affairs	and Northern Development because I	Mthink it would attract	native people from all across Canada.	IThe university has already shown itself to be understanding	Iand receptive to Indian people. Similarly, the Indian people	Iknow the university is helping them. It is wonderful to see	IIndian people mingling with all other Canadians on the	Icampus. I would like to encourage the minister to assist	Iwherever possible in establishing this faculty for Indians at the	IUniversity of Calgary.	In my opinion, this will be a giant step	Iforward in getting our	people off welfare and into a position	Iwhere they can support themselves.	IThe University of Calgary found the bill of rights was	Ihindering this program because the program was aimed at	IIndian people only. After a white woman had questioned why she was not allowed to take the course, she was permitted to	Itake the course. But a court case followed and it was ruled the	Iuniversity could not discriminate in that way. Subsequently	Ithe Alberta government amended that section either in this	Isession or the last and there is now no difficulty with it. These	Iprograms can now proceed at the University of Calgary and	Ithey are also being made available on the reserves for Indian I people. There are special 'programs at the university where	IIndians can take a course, finish off their grade 10, 11 or 12	Isubjects, if necessary, and then go on with university training.	IThis is a splendid thing. I think the people of Canada should I know that the University of Calgary is doing this with the full	Isupport of the hon. David King and the hon. Jim Horsman, the	Iministers of education for Alberta.	ISpecial courses for our Indian people have also been offered.	IWhen I was with the department of highways in Alberta we	Igave a course for heavy equipment operators. It was remark-	Iable how many Indians qualified to operate those machines	I
December 8, 1980

and became most efficient in that vocation. Indian people just require some understanding and assistance. They can become our greatest source of manpower in Canada. We bring people in from other countries and train them. I have no objection to training people from Vietnam because they need training. But let us make the training available to our Indian people and if necessary to people who have not had an education and are white skinned. That, too, could help. If we make these programs available to the greatest number of people, we will achieve the greatest results. 1 recommend this to the minister.
I want to go on to one or two other matters, dealing with employment first and then immigration. The minister will remember the mobility study on construction which came out of the 1978 first ministers' conference. I wonder if he could briefly outline the major points in it and tell us whether it is helping to solve the unemployment problem in Canada.
Is there anything in that document or in the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations which discourage people moving from one province to another? If there is, it should be removed. In the constitution we talk about mobility. I do not think a better example of mobility can be found than in the province of Alberta today. The Alberta minister of labour informed me that on October 1, 1980, there were 53,000 more people working in Alberta than on October 1, 1979. A large percentage came from the Atlantic provinces, and a tremendous number from Quebec and Ontario, as well as from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Relatively few came from the United States and other countries.
As far as we in Alberta are concerned, mobility is no problem. 1 would like to know from the minister whether there is anything in the mobility study which discourages the Unemployment Insurance Commission from encouraging people to move from one place to another.
The government can help reduce the unemployment problem, but I differ from my friends to the left who think the government should be able to do everything to solve that problem. The government will never do that. I do not know what it is like in Russia. Maybe under the government there everybody is working. However, that is not the type of administration most Canadians want.
We want people to be able to make a dollar and earn a living. Although we do not believe in exorbitant profit, we do believe in profit. One of the best ways to get the unemployed working is to have thousands of small shops which hire one, two, three or more people. It is amazing how a mass of small enterprises could help solve the unemployment problem.
Capital is leaving Canada today. Within the last two years, $6 billion has left. We are losing jobs in Canada. The budget encouraged people to move out because of the tax situation and the threat of nationalization. Some people call it Canadi-anization. I call it nationalization when the government takes over industry. I suggest this is what is giving the minister the greatest amount of difficulty in trying to solve the unemployment problem. People will not invest money if they think that
Supply
a few years down the road the government will take over and stop them from making a profit. If the minister wants to solve the unemployment problem, he should deal with that aspect.
I wish to deal with one other matter in connection with employment before moving on to immigration. It concerns abuses of unemployment insurance. I would go a second, third or fourth mile to help anyone who wants to work. However, I will not spend my time on those who are lazy, trying to find ways and means of beating the people, not contributing their share and making an easy thing out of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The act never intended that people should work only in the summer and collect unemployment insurance in the winter. It was intended for those who wanted to work and could not find a job. There are too many abuses today and we should not be supporting those abuses. It is not fair to those who are working, or to the country. I ask the minister what exactly is going to be done with regard to weeding out those who abuse unemployment insurance, making it difficult for others with genuine cases.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to answer the three major issues raised by the hon. member. Before doing so,
I would comment on his opening remarks concerning the education of native people. One of the interesting themes to appear during the examination of these estimates has been the priority that we must give to that problem. I welcome the hon. member's comments about the University of Calgary. It is similar to some of the work being done in the University of Brandon in my province, of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is chancellor. They have the same kind of extension policy.
I agree totally this is one of the ways we can provide for a self-help concept. It is true that education is the best guarantee of proper employment in this country, regardless of what we hear. The more we can open up those opportunities, the better it will be. I compliment the University of Calgary through the hon. member for what they are doing.
On the question of mobility which has been discussed on several occasions in this committee, the hon. member for Bow River raised the issue of the study of mobility in the construction trades. We have looked at that study. The primary recommendation to my department was that we introduce a series of mobility grants to cover the cost of room and board in order to overcome economic disincentives. Someone might feel there is not enough incentive to pull up stakes and move without extra support or a subsidy.
That recommendation was also referred to me within the past two or three days by the executive board of the building and construction trades department. As I indicated in the House on Friday, this is an area we will be looking at. It is a very important recommendation. As the hon. member knows, we have a task force in the department looking at the whole issue of labour market practices, including mobility. That matter has been referred to them. I hope it will come out as part of their recommendations. When we come forward with

December 8, 1980
Supply
those recommendations, I hope the hon. member will consider supporting us, at least in that regard.
With regard to the unemployment insurance program, over the past year and a half the government has introduced a number of measures in an effort to tighten up the act through legislation. We specifically increased the number of weeks required for someone re-entering the work force. Reforms were undertaken in administrative procedures. A new record-of-employment program was started. We advertised urging employers to ensure that the forms are filled out so that we may have a more accurate record of someone's actual employment history. If someone tried to submit two or three applications, he would be detected much more easily.
We introduced computerization of unemployment registration which gives us a much greater capability to record the enormous numbers of registrations. Again, we have a better capability. A major study is being undertaken, I believe by Wood Gundy, on managerial practices in the Unemployment Insurance Commission. That is also a way of tightening up. This is balancing off the requirement to ensure fairness and equity of the program while preventing abuse. We hope to strike the right balance.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I suggest to the minister that one of the best ways of getting this country working again is through free enterprise. With more people opening more shops or expanding their businesses, we can stop the flight of capital out of the country. The sooner we do that, the sooner we benefit this country.
There is no system like free enterprise. It gives a person an incentive to work. We have built up our standard of living under that system and we should not abandon it for any form of nationalization.
The next point I want to deal with is immigration. 1 have a few cases I want to deal with. One of the biggest aggravations I have found since entering federal politics is trying to get someone to answer the telephone in the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It rings and rings and rings. I thought I was the only one having that trouble. However, I have a letter here from a United Church minister who said this:
i began phoning at 8.45 a.m. and let the phone ring for 25 times. Over a period of one hour, I phoned back five times letting it ring 25 times each time.
When I finally did get through, I asked the girl whether they had a central place which could receive calls when the line is busy and relay them when a line was free. She said the government would not give them anything like that. It is very annoying. I suggest that the minister modernize the telephone system there in order to avoid this frustration. There is nothing more frustrating than listening to a telephone ring and ring and ring waiting for someone to say "hello". Even if you are later turned down, you at least have had the satisfaction of talking to someone.
I next want to deal with section 19(l)(a) of the Immigration Act. I do not like the way some people are using this. I quote from section 19:
(I) No person shall be granted admission if he is a member of any of the following classes:
(a) persons who are suffering from any disease, disorder, disability or other
health impairment as a result of the nature, severity or probable duration of
which, in the opinion of a medical officer concurred in by at least one other
medical officer,
(i)	they are or are likely to be a danger to public health or to public safety, or
(ii)	their admission would cause or might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on health or social services;
The act should be amended or enlarged to indicate that diseases which are not infectious or contagious should not be covered under that section. I know of a case where a Canadian medical doctor in England ruled that surgery on the bowel would prevent a person getting a visa to enter Canada. I talked to medical men in Canada and they cannot see how that would be considered infectious or contagious after two years or even, under the next clause, how it might cause unreasonable expense. In the new act people are given ten years in which to pay off such expense or to take out an insurance policy. That should be sufficient to look after such a situation. I ask the minister to check that item.
I come now to another question, Mr. Chairman. There is a lot of unemployment in Canada and it is not at all in the small villages and towns. In the Calgary office there is a man by the name of Kuizw who cannot seem to realize that though someone may be unemployed in Calgary there are no unemployed in a place like Vulcan. If someone in Calgary is available for work, this man will not issue the necessary certificate for someone to be brought in from China for a particular job. The applicants may specify that they need someone who can speak Chinese, someone to act as a nanny for their children or that they want someone to work in a restaurant, to learn the trade and to learn the English language under capable management. One immigration officer wrote to an applicant stating that the employment of the foreign worker would have an adverse effect on the employment and career opportunities for Canadians.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I hope I would be given a chance to continue.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Does the minister wish to make a brief reply at this point? The hon. member's time has expired.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants to continue-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Chairman, as the member of Parliament for Parkdale-High Park, I have the honour of representing many
December 8, 1980

individuals whose heritage lies in other countries of the world and who still maintain close family ties with those countries. These individuals make up the ethnocultural mosaic of our country. I am proud to say that Parkdale-High Park has one of the largest multicultural mixes in Canada. In view of this, I am approached on a regular basis with requests for assistance in the immigration of friends and relatives to Canada. Often these individuals encounter difficulties and call on me for help in expediting their case.
Since June, 1979, when my constituency office opened in Toronto, 1 have become involved in 390 cases directly concerning immigration and involving such countries as the United States, England, Poland, the Philippines, India, the West Indies, Austria, China, Germany and the Soviet Union. As a result, I have worked closely with the Department of Employment and Immigration, and most recently together with the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I applaud and appreciate the very difficult portfolio which the Minister of Employment and Immigration holds. If there are so many cases in only one constituency, one must only multiply that number by 282 members of Parliament to appreciate the immensity and responsibilities of the post.
I wish to compliment the minister on the humanitarian approach he has taken toward helping to resolve difficult immigration appeals, particularly in the case of family reunification from such areas as the east European countries and the Soviet Union.
Canada has come to be regarded as a compassionate country, and it is through programs and regulations included in the Immigration Act, as well as the decisiveness of our Minister of Employment and Immigration that we will continue to maintain the enviable position we hold in the world. By listening to and understanding the pleas of these many individuals throughout the world, as well as to the groups representing them here in Canada, I feel we can accomplish our goal. This concern was recently shown in my own riding, when the hon. minister visited Toronto to meet and discuss many factors concerning immigration with representatives from the Canadian Polish Congress.
I have had the opportunity many times to ask questions of the minister, through correspondence or in committee. I receive numerous complaints and inquiries from constituents and have often found the need for official clarification or explanation on points of law concerning the Immigration Act. I must thank the minister for the replies I have received to these many questions and for the positive suggestions and actions he has put forth.
One example of this is a letter I sent to the minister in July of this year requesting information on whether the self-exiled designated class regulation which was due to expire on January 1, 1981, would be extended to allow many east European refugees to resettle in Canada. This regulation gives individuals who are unable to return to their homelands or those who have escaped political and personal harassment the opportu-
Supply
nity to resettle in Canada, on special humanitarian grounds, in cases where they would not be eligible for immigration under normal circumstances. The minister replied to my letter positively by extending the regulation until January 1, 1983, thus maintaining the opportunity for these unfortunate people to take advantage of this special program.
I also received extensive information from the minister which provided statistical data on such topics as the number of refugees from Asia and eastern Europe seeking resettlement in Canada, the number of individuals given permission to remain in Canada under special minister's permits, the numbers of individuals deported from Canada for various reasons over the last five years and the number of immigrants destined to the Toronto area who would be enrolling children in the school system.
I was able to pass this information on to interested departments at the Toronto Board of Education for their use. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Toronto Board of Education on its excellent programs for new Canadian children. The Toronto Board of Education has provided reception classes for students who have just arrived in Canada, English classes, translation and interpretation services in practically every language of the world, heritage language classes and other programs which I do not have time to mention here. However, in Toronto multiculturalism is a reality.
In addition, I have obtained from the minister information on major funding available for services which provide immigration counselling and assistance on a private basis in Toronto. Again I thank the minister for providing me with such useful information.
There is substantial interest among members of the public concerning immigration, particularly among the people I mentioned who have families who remain in other parts of the world. This was demonstrated in my own riding when I held an immigration seminar at which top officials from the local office of the Department of Employment and Immigration were present to meet the public and to answer many questions. Over 200 people took time from their own schedules to attend this meeting. This just illustrates how much concern and interest exist within our community in the area of immigration.
There are, however, several questions which continue to be asked and about which I would appreciate receiving clarification from the minister. These problems occur frequently in the cases presented to me, and I am seeking ways to resolve some of them.
Does the minister have any plans to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in Canada-the number of immigrants who are living underground and of whom we know nothing of their whereabouts? Many of these individuals are afraid to send their children to school because of the fear that they will be recognized. However, many of them have remained in Canada for many years and have settled well. I would appreciate knowing whether special consideration will be given to these individuals when deciding whether they should be allowed to remain in Canada.
5496

December 8, 1980
Supply
Does the minister have any plans to curb so-called immigration consultant sharks, as I call them, who charge as much as $5,000 promising someone permanent residence status in Canada and frequently disappointing that person when all is done or, I should say, not done.
Why is Canada not living up to the spirit of basket 3 of the Helsinki Final Act concerning human contacts? The act, which Canada signed, reads, and I quote:
-contacts and regular meetings on the basis of family ties, in order to promote the further development of contacts on the basis of family ties, the participating states favourably consider application for travel with the purpose of allowing persons to enter or leave their territory temporarily, and on a regular basis if desired, in order to visit members of their families.
In connection with this, when a family wishes to visit relatives in Canada for a period of three months 1 would like to ask the minister why the officials in our foreign posts insist on granting a visa for only one month or a shorter period of time. Is this not contravening the spirit of the Helsinki Final Act of which Canada is a signatory? The processing of seeking extensions of these visas wastes valuable time for the immigration officials, the member of Parliament involved and the sponsoring families.
I would appreciate an update on the minister's negotiations with the United States concerning the infamous "Buffalo shuffle" by which individuals wishing to apply for permanent residence in Canada through a Canadian post in the United States are unable to do so due to the fact that Canada will not guarantee their readmission to Canada and the United States government will not admit them unless they have such a guarantee.
My next question is with respect to the serious political and economic situation in Poland. Should a war break out in Poland-and we hope not-would visitors who are here from Poland be granted asylum in Canada? Would the minister allow such Polish citizens trapped in Canada to apply quickly for permanent residence from within Canada? In the same circumstances would the government attempt to process quickly any outstanding applications from Poland and allow an increased flow of immigration from that country?
I would appreciate an update on the minister's negotiations with the provinces. Which provinces have requested more immigration, and which provinces have requested less?
I would appreciate information on family reunification cases, from the Ukraine specifically. Many of the Ukrainian-Canadian groups in Toronto have approached me many times to state that very few cases are resolved from the Ukraine, and I would like specific statistics to deal with this question.
The 4(H) regulation of the act concerning immigration of members of the family class is another area of concern to many of my constituents. The regulations state that an individual alone in Canada who wishes to sponsor a relative but who has another relative who is also sponsorable cannot sponsor the relative wishing to be sponsored. For example, a person in Canada wishing to sponsor a younger brother cannot do so because an elderly grandfather is still living, despite the fact that the grandfather does not wish to be sponsored and
has no wish to come to Canada. It would appear that this legislation, while on the one hand attempting to help in a compassionate way permanent residents in Canada who are alone, at the same time creates and promotes an artificial hardship. I would appreciate learning from the minister whether he has any plans to amend this legislation. If he does not, I suggest that the relevant paragraph in information booklets printed by the Department of Employment and Immigration be reworded to avoid confusion. Much of the wording as it now stands leads people astray, as in the case I have just cited. The family class sponsorship section of the booklet reads, and I quote:
Any relative, regardless of age or marital status, can be sponsored.
In reality this is not true. Would the minister consider amending legislation to allow co-sponsorship in cases where one individual in a family is not able to sponsor a relative alone but perhaps a brother and a sister are willing to do so?
The minister's answers to the above questions will be of great interest and assistance to all hon. members of this House, to my dear constituents of Parkdale-High Park and to all Canadians.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. As Minister of Employment and Immigration 1 am not used to such compliments in such frequency. When they do come, I am particularly appreciative because of that infrequency. I compliment the hon. member in return by saying it is through the efforts of hon. members like himself who take such a strong and thoughtful interest in immigration that we are able to perform our functions.
1 said in the House on Friday that the administration of the immigration law is very much made of human judgments. It cannot be bureaucratized. It cannot be regularized. It is something which requires an individual to make choices. Sometimes they are tough choices, and I want to thank the hon. member for the assistance he has provided me in many cases by bringing information and wisdom to many of the more difficult judgments we have had to make.
The hon. member has asked a number of very specific questions. I hope I will have time to respond fully to them. If I cannot give complete answers, I will make sure they are given to the hon. member in written form.
His first question dealt with illegal immigrants. This matter should really be looked at on a case-by-case basis. We obviously do not want to encourage large-scale illegal entry to Canada because it is unfair for those who apply legally and go through proper procedures. That is why we put some effort into enforcement.
At the same time, if an individual or family has been here for a long period of time, has settled into a community and demonstrated worth, I give the hon. member and other members the assurance that we would be prepared to consider such cases on their merits and to apply the standards of compassion and recognition to contribution to this country. We cannot make a blanket statement on that, for obvious reasons, but we
December 8, 1980

are certainly prepared to look at individual cases as they come forward.
The question of immigration consultants has bothered me a great deal and 1 have referred it to the special task force on immigration regulations which I established two months ago. The task force has prepared a discussion paper outlining the legal regulatory questions related to immigration consultants who do sometimes prey upon immigrants. What I intend to do is release that discussion paper to provincial governments, immigration groups and ethnic groups for their comments and then bring about whatever changes are necessary to tighten up the system. I hope this discussion paper will be ready immediately after Christmas. 1 will ensure that the hon. member receives one, as will all members of Parliament.
On the question of visitors' visas I am concerned about the assertion of the hon. member that some people in his constituency have complained that they have been denied visitors' visas for the time period they requested. The general principle is that applications are considered carefully in our offices overseas, and whether visits be requested for three months or six months, if they are legitimate the applications should be considered in accordance with that time frame. I can only say to the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, and perhaps to other hon. members opposite, that if there has been a tightening in certain immigration posts abroad, they should let me know and we will immediately telex and ask them about specific cases. 1 make the same offer to the hon. member for Mississauga.
As to the Buffalo shuffle, I do not like to use that word in the confines of the House, Mr. Chairman. It almost sounds like a new dance we are originating, and in fact it is almost a new dance. It really does mean there is a reciprocity between the United States and ourselves for people who may be in this country and do not want the total inconvenience of going back to a country far away to apply to come here. We are working out arrangements with the U.S. authorities. We have been negotiating an agreement with the U.S. authorities since July, I believe, and I can report to the House that the agreement is almost finalized and there will be reciprocity between the two governments in terms of exchanging those privileges. I want to indicate that that is not a general privilege; it is one that will be fairly well administered in terms of control in cases which really warrant it. In most instances we feel that people who want to land here, should follow the rules and go back to their place of origin, but where there are special circumstances we are prepared to make those arrangements with the U.S. authorities, and they are able to do likewise.
On the question of special measures for Poland, this is an area in which I feel a little reluctant to intervene because External Affairs is not my responsibility, nor necessarily my strong point. Perhaps I lack the diplomatic skills which are required for that post. However, I would say we would obviously be ready to respond to any immediate emergency, just as we responded two weeks ago to the severe problems in Italy
Supply
when they experienced the earthquake. If there were a major problem-our past record shows how we responded to the problems in Czechoslovakia or Hungary-we would obviously be prepared to consider such arrangements. But, as the saying goes, let us not cross the bridge until we come to it, and I suppose it works in this case. I would only say that we are watching the situation in Poland very carefully, along with other organizations and countries, and we hope nothing serious will happen. If there were a major invasion or some other international crisis, we would obviously make our immigration services respond in a flexible and open manner.
As far as consultation with provinces is concerned, we are required by law, as the hon. member knows, to consult with each of the provinces before we establish immigration levels each year. We undertook a very extensive consultation the previous summer with them and most of the provinces reported to us that they were prepared to accept the existing immigration levels. In some cases, provinces indicated that they were prepared to take more immigrants, particularly the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. In no case did we receive a request that the numbers be fewer. It was upon the basis of that consultation that we arrived at the proposal for continuing immigration levels at about the same level as last year but changing the composition of that level, as the hon. member knows, to provide for more people coming in under the family class and under the independent class.
With regard to the question related to regulation 4H, this is a matter which we will refer to the task force I mentioned. It has been charged with the examination of a large variety of regulatory decisions and procedures under the Immigration Act. I will refer the hon. member's request to them and ask for a report. In fact, I suggest to him, as I did to another hon. member earlier, that perhaps he would like to meet the members of the task force and explain his case more fully so they will have a better understanding of his point of view and can incorporate it into their findings.
With regard to the Helsinki agreement on the visiting of families, I go back to my point with regard to the visitors' visas. We will attempt to provide for the proper length of time as that provided in exchange. I know of the hon. member's great concern with difficulties in the Ukraine. We have to admit that there has been a serious falling off in the numbers coming in from the Ukraine. It is not owing to our action but rather to the fact that the Soviet Union is limiting the number of people they allow to leave, which is contrary to the Helsinki agreement. I had a meeting with the new ambassador, Ambassador Pearson, before he went to Moscow and I asked him to take up that matter with the Soviet authorities as soon as he arrives; I expect a report from him on the discussions he will hold.
Finally, on the issue of co-sponsorships, I think that the hon. member has raised a very important point. I will take it under consideration. I think it would require changes in the act which I am not all that anxious to make right away since we have enough problems. But it is a very useful suggestion and

December 8, 1980
Supply
we will look at it. I thank the hon. member for his questions and comments.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, my intervention will be relatively brief. 1 might say at the outset that it continues to be a disappointment-although I am pleased to see the Minister of State for Mines in the chamber at present-that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is left to his own devices this evening, as was the Minister of Transport last week. Of course, the exercise we are going through is a brand new one for most members in this chamber. For some of us it is a welcome return to what democracy is all about, a welcome return to what we lost some time ago when the House gave up any control over the spending by the executive. It takes us back to a point when there was real control by the House over the executive. What we may have right now is a bit of a sham, but it is pleasant to remember. In that context, I wish that other treasury bench members had exhibited sufficient concern, as does the Minister of State for Mines, the only other minister present in the House, for employment and approaches to employment in this country to have been here to personally monitor the debate.
I look up to the galleries and, apart from the minister's officials, I see none of the young whiz kids, the bright executive assistants. I do not see any of them. There is only one lone representative of the Canadian Press, a couple of constables and a handful of government supporters who are obviously sincere. They are here to support the minister. A number of our people are here because they are interested in employment and immigration problems. For example, I wish the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce were here and I wish the Minister of Labour were here. Or is this the night when he and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources get their walking papers and are given other responsibilities? Perhaps the minister might comment on that. Will there be a change, or can he bring an end to these rumours that have persisted over radio and other electronic press media in the last two or three hours? I wish these ministers were here because many of the questions which the Minister of Employment and Immigration has been answering last week and today have to do with the creation of job opportunities. Of course, that is not his responsibility. I should like to ask him about an Atlantic industrial strategy. What are we going to do in that respect? For example, is the minister aware of the extraordinary high unemployment levels among the blacks in Atlantic Canada? If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would move away from the minister's officials so that they might listen to me for a minute, or, instead, speak to the minister, who is not particularly concerned either, I would be grateful. I wish the minister would speak about a strategy for the Atlantic provinces where, as he must be aware, we are suffering from chronic-not unemployment, but underemployment. I am not sure that we can learn from the minister and I am not sure he is the proper man to ask, but I wish we could learn about an Atlantic strategy with respect to ridding us of this underemployment and unemployment difficulty which we continue to have. I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the minister responsible
for social matters were here so that I might ask them questions, but I will put my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration because I am sure he is capable of answering it.
I am concerned about the drain on the national fund and also the reasons for it. What consideration has the government given in recent years to diverting moneys from the unemployment insurance fund into the area of identification and correction of learning disabilities? Concerned professional people have indicated that in this area the strain on the fund is enormous and that even a token transfer of funds to identification and correction at a very early age could save taxpayers enormous amounts of money. I have listened to the minister wax philosophically. Could he perhaps address himself to that question for a moment or two, and then I will have one or two others for him?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, before answering the hon. member specifically, I should like to relate my own nostalgic memory about this exercise of estimates when I was a member of the provincial House. We went through this exercise on an annual basis and some 90 hours were devoted to the examination of the estimates of different ministerial departments. Of course, the only difference is that this time I am on the other side. If one had to make a choice in this exercise, I suppose one would find at certain times that it is more fun being in opposition than in government.


An hon. Member:: Not as a long-term project.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. However, it has certain shortterm gains.
There is already an opportunity under the unemployment insurance fund to transfer money directly into training programs. It is our expectation that this year close to $200 million from the fund will be reallocated into training recipients rather than simply putting them on the dole or whatever one would want to call it. Since 1977 we have had the right to transfer funds, and the $200 million is being reallocated in a fairly successful way. We intend to look at it even further as part of the task force review which is presently under way. We will consider how to better allocate our resources into job training and employment funds on a longer-term basis. That is one reason we introduced the LEDA program-to see how we could use the funds for investment directly in communities. Perhaps the hon. member for Bow River will be interested in this because he asked how we could get small business back into business again. Through a concept like LEDA, we hope we can go into smaller communities like the ones which exist in the maritimes, for example, and provide start-up grants for small businesses to create longer-term jobs. It would be a way of establishing an economic development program as opposed to simply a job-creation program. This is one of the things we are trying out.
December 8, 1980


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, my question did not have anything to do with that at all. I will put it very directly. How much money has been diverted in the last three years to the identification and correction of learning disabilities in children?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would have to get the precise amount which might have been allocated for that particular purpose. We do not have that information available now. 1 will find it for the hon. member.


M. Forrestall:: 1 appreciate the minister's response. While he is at it, perhaps he would ask his officials for an opinion as to the dollars saved. If he does not mind, I would invite the minister to respond to that question in the form of a letter which, with his permission, I intend to distribute among the people in this country who are concerned about the identification and correction of learning disabilities and the dollar savings which can be achieved through the early and adequate addressing of this major problem, not only in Canada but in the entire world.
During the Clark administration, the then minister of immigration, Mr. Atkey, responded to requests from farm communities in central and eastern Canada respecting migrant farm labourers at the time of harvesting and what not. In response to repeated demands, the government of the day removed the existing quota and allowed migrant workers to come into the country. It seemed to work out fairly well. These workers came principally from the Caribbean and Mexico to meet the demands of our rural communities. While they were here, of course, they were required to make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and other contributory funds. When they returned to their own countries, they were able to make application for the return of some of those contributions, because under normal circumstances there was no way they could put in the required number of years to qualify, and indeed they were not eligible to draw Canada Pension benefits because they were not Canadians. It would seem only natural that their contributions should be returned to them. The difficulty is twofold-first, because of the removal of the quota the numbers have increased considerably; second, the processing of applications is so slow and lengthy that very few migrant workers bother to seek the return of their contributions. As I understand it, according to the liaison officer for the Windward Islands, the process is lengthy and complex, and indeed, money is charged for the processing of these applications. I know this subject matter is under discussion at certain levels within the minister's department. Has the minister reached any conclusion with respect to it? If we are encouraging people to come into our country to perform menial, hard, back-breaking labour in our vineyards and harvesting other crops for our benefit, perhaps we should have the courtesy not to take money from them, particularly when they can never hope realistically to gain any advantage from their contributions. What is the minister's attitude with respect to this? Does he not believe that perhaps it is time to take a second look at this area, in the interests of continuing to attract migrant
Supply
labour which we very desperately need on an annual basis? Should we not stop collecting contributions unless they continue to show up year in and year out, in which event there might be another status to consider?


Lloyd Axworthy: I must confess to the hon. member that this is the first I have heard of that problem. A month or so ago I met with the ambassadors of the Caribbean countries to discuss a whole range of issues related to foreign agricultural workers coming into the country. They did not raise that issue with me. Perhaps it is a matter which falls more under the Department of National Revenue since it involves the collection of funds. Certainly I will take it under advisement. I will raise it with the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue. I intend to meet with the Caribbean ambassadors every three or four months. I will raise it with them at the next meeting to see if it is a major problem, and I will attempt to get back to the member on this issue.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat appalled. I am not sure what question to ask the minister next. I would like to say to him very personally, as a long-time advocate of paying greater attention to the Caribbean and those island nations, that I welcome the minister's indication that he meets with them every three or four months and intends to continue doing that.
I would like to move to another area. I apologize to him if he has dealt with it already; if he has, he can refer me to his response. If he has not dealt with it I would like him to elaborate on it. As a very proud parent of four adopted children and one of my own, I would like to ask the minister why it is we continue to militate against parents-not mothers, but parents of either sex-who may have adopted a child. When a baby comes into your home it does not matter, whether it is four or five days old or whether it has been brought there in the normal process or not. It is still loved and requires attention. I am talking about maternity benefits. This is a matter which has been on the order paper, standing in my name, on and off for about 15 years. 1 wonder if the minister could say a word or two about it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the matter of the relationship between adoptive parents and benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act has been brought to my attention several times. 1 can tell the hon. member I became somewhat curious as to the evolution of the act and how it came to single out maternity benefits. It really had to do with the changes in the act over time so that the inclusion of maternity benefits was seen as a stoppage of work for hospitalization reasons, for health reasons, really for physical disability. It has since evolved to a much broader concept, one which I personally endorse, which is the idea of parental care. There should be a provision in the act recognizing parental care as a qualification for benefit. As part of the review of the Unemployment Insurance Act I have asked the commissioners to look specifically at the question of how the Unemployment Insurance Act

December 8, 1980
Supply
relates to adoption. It will be part of the report we shall be releasing for discussion in the future.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, do I have time for a brief question or two? I would like to return to my opening observations with respect to the programs the minister and his colleagues have in mind for the longer term. Can the minister tell us what is the long-term strategy for correcting underemployment and unemployment in Atlantic Canada, apart from the programs we heard mentioned ad nauseam on Friday and today?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thought the member would end his remarks with an easy question. It would be less than forthcoming of me to say that at this point that work is being done in the government on the idea of a national industrial strategy which would have its own regional breakdowns. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is the lead minister in developing that program. What we are attempting to do through our own work in the labour market is to determine what the employment-unemployment situation might be over a period of time. There have been some reasonably positive signs as trends are measured, that is, in the last year or two, that the unemployment rate in the maritimes has begun to fall. There is an increase in economic growth in certain parts of that region. There is obviously a great expectation that with new discoveries in the offshore areas in oil and gas and the prosperity of the fishing industry there will be an increased demand for workers.
Right now we are trying to develop training programs in the Atlantic provinces which are suitable for those new job requirements and the new supply requirements which we see forthcoming in the next four or five years. We have had some very serious discussions with manpower and labour ministers in the maritime provinces with respect to that. We shall be negotiating with the provincial ministers during the coming year as we renegotiate the occupational training legislation to ensure that as far as our own department is concerned we shall be in a position to work with them to put in place the right kinds of programs to meet those new demands. There is a real prospect for substantial changes in the maritimes in terms of increased employment growth. It could be one of the faster employment growth areas in the country.


J. Michael Forrestall: I see my time is running out but I would like to ask the minister with respect to retraining whether there is a retraining program in Atlantic Canada in the petrochemical industry. The minister has a puzzled look on his face. I would like to suggest to him that his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources, has told Canadians in Atlantic Canada on two separate occasions, that we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a petrochemical industry in the Strait of Canso-it is going to Gros Cacouna. The minister of energy ducks these questions in the House, as does the minister responsible for regional economic development. He will deny that this was said and that was said. But members of the press have overheard the comments and they are not, in my view, fabricators or distortionists with respect to the truth. My
question is: what is going to replace this last opportunity to use our provincial resources, for any practical purposes? I am talking about our ability to derive economic benefit from those resources by way of job opportunities and the possibility of developing a viable petrochemical industry for the offshore market, for the Third World-South America, Africa and Asia. We have lost that opportunity in Atlantic Canada, watching it slip through our fingers because of the overhwelm-ing pressure of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has the guts to go ahead and do what he believes in doing, regardless of the effect it has on Atlantic Canada. But what is going to replace it? I let the minister demonstrate to me why I should have faith in the free due process. Let him tell me that he is training people to work in the petrochemical industry and then I will believe that the National Energy Board has the freedom to make a decision with respect to the location of the LNG terminal, the regasification terminal. Tell me that and 1 will believe it. But the minister cannot do that. What will we do? Are we to be hewers of wood for the rest of our lives? Ministers over there talk about great opportunities but it takes seven or eight years to put a pipeline in place and get oil and gas through it. Do they know what we are? We are watchers of a pipeline carrying our resources to Quebec and to central Canada. Do something that demonstrates concern about us. We hear about these ad hoc programs. They just drive us further into isolation.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but unless he wishes to seek the unanimous consent of the committee I must interrupt him to tell him his time has expired.


Miss Jewett:: I would like to ask the minister who is responsible for the status of women a few questions which 1 do not believe have been touched on yet today. One of my grave concerns, as the minister knows-and I hope it is one he shares-is the protection of the equal rights of women in the law, as well as before the law, in the government's constitutional proposals. Perhaps I should clarify that by saying that this lack of the protection of the equal rights of women in the constitutional proposals has been brought out very vividly by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and by his own Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Tomorrow morning it will be brought out again. I do not know whether the minister has yet had time to see the brief submitted by the National Association of Women and the Law. It was also one of the main points in the brief given by the commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Was the minister simply relying on what the Minister of Justice and the government's legal experts were saying about section 15 and section 1? Did he at any time this summer when the drafts were proposed take a look, as the minister responsible for the status of women, at the actual wording to see if it would in fact provide women and men equal rights within the law? Did he ask the advisory council for their opinion? As the minister knows they were preparing many papers for a conference which, unfortunately, could not be held in the first week of September, including a brilliant paper
December 8, 1980

to which 1 have referred before by Professor Beverley Baines on women and the law and the constitution.
1 was quite amazed when I asked one of the vice-presidents of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Madam Lucie Pepin, whether she, the president, or any members of the council had been asked by the minister if they were satisfied with the protection of the equality of women, and she said that they had not been consulted at all. This struck me as extraordinary considering that the Baines paper came out in August and the council was preparing for this conference and preparing a lot of papers with some very sharp criticisms of the government proposals as being totally inadequate, particularly with regard to the before-the-law clause, but on many other clauses as well.
1 wonder why the minister did not consult with the advisory council. Perhaps it is more important now to know whether he has since read with some care their briefs and the briefs of others including the one I just mentioned by the National Association of Women and the Law? If the minister does see the strength of their arguments, will he pursue them with his colleagues in cabinet? In fact, it would be excellent if the minister himself would pursue the necessary amendments to the constitutional proposals because, as the human rights commissioner has said, they are gravely flawed, before the committee. Might he perhaps do that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the resolution containing the charter of rights is presently being considered by a committee of this House. As I said earlier today, as a member of this House I look forward with interest to its deliberations and recommendations. The reason for the committee is, as the hon. member suggests, to receive representations from a wide variety of groups and organizations and to use its best judgment to extract what they think is proper, effective, useful and helpful from those representations. Obviously, it will not accept all of them because in many cases the recommendations are contradictory.


Pauline Jewett: No, they are all the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The women are united.


Lloyd Axworthy: One reason why this committee of Parliament was established is to bring the judgment of our peers to bear upon that issue. The inclusion of the non-discriminatory rights in the charter was a major step forward for women in this country on the ground that it entrenches their rights. This has never occurred before and the history of our court cases and our jurisprudence shows that we have suffered from the lack of a clear, fundamental law which establishes basic rights against which other rights passed by statutes of this Parliament or by legislative assemblies would have to be judged.
The difficulty encountered in past court cases in which conflicting statutes are involved-for example, the Unemployment Insurance Act versus the Canadian Bill of Rights-is that the courts have clearly stated-and 1 would cite for the
Supply
member's interest the judgment of Chief Justice Bora Laskin in Curr versus The Queen- that where there are two statutes passed by the same House the courts cannot judge which is of more merit, simply because they have both been passed by the same House with the same authority and the same mandate.
In many of the cases which have worked against women's rights, it has been on these grounds. It was not because of a superior law or a fundamental law. The hon. member is disputing with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.


Pauline Jewett: That is not a case concerning women. You have the wrong case.


Lloyd Axworthy: I presume the hon. member can pit her knowledge against that of the chief justice, and that is her business.


Pauline Jewett: You have the wrong case, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the wrong case. I have looked at this matter very carefully.


Pauline Jewett: No, you haven't.


Lloyd Axworthy: I know the hon. member is a fount of most wisdom in this country, but I think she recognizes that there are legitimate differences on the viewpoint and its interpretation.


Pauline Jewett: Just facts.


Lloyd Axworthy: Regardless, Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can't you two professors get along better than this?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am not attempting to argue, 1 am attempting to explain, and I thought that the hon. member wanted an explanation. That was one of the major problems in our courts of law. There was not a fundamental law which gave clear signals to the courts upon which they could make decisions. It is on those grounds that many of the cases were decided against the expansion of rights. The entrenchment of a charter takes a major step forward in providing that clear and abiding signal. That was not something that was analysed in the Baines paper, and while it was a brilliant paper in some respects, it ignored some facts in law.
In the second case, I would point out to the hon. member that the entrenchment of rights in the constitution would have the immediate effect of requiring the legislative assemblies and Parliament to go back and re-evaluate the various laws which are available to determine in what ways they contradict or run against the charter. So, without going to court at all, there is an immediate cleansing of the act, a certain catharsis of the law in terms of eliminating discriminatory clauses. This was discussed in cabinet and this is why the three-year time lag was imposed, so that this Parliament and the legislatures could review the laws in their statute books to determine what would have to be changed in accordance with the requirements to

December 8, 1980
Supply
ensure equal rights for people, regardless of their background, age, sex or whatever.
The hon. member would have to admit that this is a major step forward. Even the wording of the act can be changed to strengthen it and it is certainly the intention of members of this government and this caucus to support such cases. That is the reason the committee was established and why it was mandated by this Parliament to use its judgment to see how the resolution and the charter could be improved upon.
The government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and I have all indicated this to organizations with which we have met. I have met with the advisory council and the national action committee, and perhaps more women's groups than the hon. member over the last two months, to discuss this matter and I indicated, that we are prepared to look at any proposed changes which would improve upon the law. But we do want to see the committee's considerations because I, for one, would not want to impose my judgment on that committee. It has a mandate from this Parliament which I respect, and I assume that it will follow through, listen to briefs put before it, then act and use its judgment accordingly. It is very important that we recognize and respect the due procedures of this House.
It would be wrong for the hon. member to try to create false confrontation where there is none because we have already indicated our interest in improving upon the charter and our interest in looking with favour upon the recommendations of the committee.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, the reason I was so conciliatory is because I am so concerned about this matter that I want the minister to give it serious attention. That is why 1 have been trying to talk about it in a non-confrontational way. The fact is, the minister has not read the briefs very carefully or, if he has, he has not understood them.
They are not contradictory. I am speaking now of the Human Rights Commission brief, the NAC brief and his own advisory council brief as well as the National Association of Women and the Law brief. All hone in on the same point so it is wrong to say that they are contradictory. They ail point out very carefully that the matter is complex and that entrenchment of the same words will not do any good at all. The most recent brief points out that an examination of the two leading sex inequality cases, Lavell and Bliss, reveals that the decisions did not turn on a difference between a statutory and a constitutional standard for equality. It says that they are not at all confident that the Supreme Court will begin to interpret this clause, which is worded exactly the same as it is in the Canadian Bill of Rights, in a broader way simply because it is entrenched and that in their view these words are likely to receive exactly the same interpretation after entrenchment as before. That is the view of all of the constitutional experts who have helped these groups to prepare briefs. There is no contradiction whatsoever.
The Curr case that the minister mentioned is irrelevant. The Baines paper did discuss it very briefly because it is not relevant to the equality of women.
As to the three-year time period, Mr. Chairman, they have all said the same. The only part of the constitutional document that says this clause does not have to be enforced for three years will prevent a good deal of the inequality that now exists from being adjudicated. This is a very serious question. 1 am glad the minister has talked to these groups but I am sorry that he did not consult them ahead of time, particularly the advisory council. I think they would have been helpful in drawing up the constitutional proposals in a more reasonable fashion in the first place.
I am sorry that the minister has not taken up the cause more vigorously than he has to date. I would have thought that one way to do that would be to use his influence with the Minister of Justice and his department to ensure that the changes unanimously agreed upon will be made. 1 hope he will reconsider his rather laissez-faire attitude on a matter that 1 am sure concerns him as much as it does all the women for whom, in a way, he speaks as the minister responsible for women.
1 have a few other questions that I should like to address to the minister, Mr. Chairman. As he knows, I have been very interested in the Outreach program particularly the Outreach program for women. 1 am having difficulty finding out what is happening with the program. I cannot even find out the total number of Outreach programs in existence or how many are designated as women's Outreach project. I cannot find out what the total budget is and what part of it is designated for women's Outreach projects. 1 am speaking now of the projects for the current fiscal year. I cannot find out what percentage increase will be forthcoming to ensure they keep pace with inflation. I have not yet heard what plans the minister has for the next fiscal year nor have any of the regional directors heard. Will they be cut back or will he be adding to them? Is he concerned or is he impressed with what they have done? I think he must be impressed.
There is a project in my constituency called "Aware" and at a meeting this summer in Vancouver which a board member attended the minister encouraged them to submit a proposal to him to expand Aware services from New Westminster to Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge and Surrey.
The minister made the request in June. In July, Aware sent a draft proposal outlining the suggested expansion. At the end of August they received a letter from the minister acknowledging the draft and stating that he would be in touch. The next word they got was to the effect that there was no money available. I wrote to the minister about this on October 16 and only today received a reply dated December 5 from the minister, stating that unfortunately the British Columbia and Yukon region and all other regional funds for the fiscal year 1980-81 are fully committed to existing projects. Yet they had got the impression that they had done so well that funds would be made available; that it would not be a matter of taking them out of the program for some other region. I wonder if the minister could answer these general questions about the
December 8, 1980

women's Outreach programs and in particular why the Aware project in New Westminster was encouraged to develop and then, several months later, told that no funds were available?


Lloyd Axworthy: On the matter of the Outreach programs, Mr. Chairman, the first step was to re-establish the financing commitment to the $9.7 million level so that we really put back about $1.3 million into the program.
Second, I asked the department to freeze applications for that money. At that point, close to 50 per cent Or 60 per cent were going to native Outreach programs and 1 wanted to change the percentage to give more emphasis to women's projects. At the present time there are 19 projects dealing with the employment concerns of women across Canada, and about five or six more are under consideration. This was simply to catch up to the very low level of the previous year. We have encouraged the women counsellors in the regional offices to develop new projects and several are coming on stream. To the extent that they are valuable contributions and break new ground, we will consider them. The funding is pretty well exhausted this year because much of the total allocation has already been made but I believe some are left which are being allocated primarily to women's projects.
As for the specific Aware program she mentioned, I will check on the details and respond to the hon. member in writing.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has one minute left.


Pauline Jewett: As 1 mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the minister's letter about the specific project in my constituency reached me only today so I would appreciate hearing from him about it.
May 1 return to a comment the minister made about the affirmative action program? There was a good deal of discussion earlier today about affirmative action in the public sector so 1 shall not go over that ground again
The minister made a passing comment about encouraging affirmative action programs in the private sector. Someone said the government had $7 billion in contracts but I understand that the government has purchased $11 billion from private companies. If there were affirmative action programs in all those companies you would really get some fast action. I gather that the government is still operating on the voluntary system whereby companies may or may not start an affirmative action program. Several months ago the minister said this did not seem to be working very well. I think he said that in committee. He said he would seriously consider making it mandatory. He mentioned that it seems to be stronger in the United States. It certainly does.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but she has already exceeded her time. She may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Dion:: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have this opportunity of speaking to a subject that concerns me greatly, as it does also my colleagues, and that is the job-creation policies of our government. On June 2, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced his program to stimulate employment in the 1980s. At that time he announced a whole series of programs that would affect directly the unemployed Canadians and lay greater emphasis on those groups most severely affected by unemployment, namely, women, the native peoples and the young.
Mr. Chairman, the riding of Portneuf, which I represent here in the House, also feels the effects of the economic recession that is being experienced not only in Canada but also next door in the United States. The riding of Portneuf comprises 43 municipalities that are wholly rural, semi-rural and urban. Its economy is based mainly on agriculture which represents 40 per cent of its income. Farming is particularly successful in the north and northwest parts of Portneuf. In the south, economic development depends mostly on small and medium businesses, and that despite the fact that this is where are located two main industries in Portneuf, namely, Domtarat Donnacona and Ciment Quebec at Saint-Basile.
In the area comprising the municipalities of Val-Belair, Neufchatel, Shannon and Saint-Augustin, the main industries are the military base at Valcartier, Valcartier Industries, the National Defence Research Centre and the industrial park of Saint-Augustin which regroups the small and medium businesses located in the vicinity of Quebec City.
That indeed shows, Mr. Chairman, how vast the Portneuf riding is and how diversified its development has been. We therefore welcome the policies announced by the minister, and I myself am particularly interested in them. I want to thank and congratulate the minister for extending the youth employment programs and also for announcing and implementing the community development programs, which, obviously, have had a wide success in my area.
There is, however, one thing in my opinion, and in the opinion of all my colleagues no doubt, that should be improved upon and that is that the funds provided for these programs are insufficient and should be increased. In Portneuf, we have been allocated a total of $627,000 for these programs but, and I ask the minister to take note, we have received applications for over $3.5 million.
Since the inception of these programs, in the seventies, Portneuf has received some $7 million in federal grants and these have been put to good use. These federal government programs are very popular in my area. Also, in urban and semi-urban ridings which have 40-odd municipalities, like

December 8, 1980
Supply
Portneuf, there are many non-profit organizations concerned with the development of their community, such as chambers of commerce, caisses populaires, social clubs, sports associations and all sorts of non-profit corporations. These groups always submit many well conceived projects, in accordance with the criteria set out in the program and satisfying a true need since they create jobs.
When they are financed, such projects bring about extraordinary results. 1 can name some which would never have happened without this program. I can mention the Marmite Falls in Riviere-a-Pierre, the Saint-Raymond ski resort, the Saint-Raymond Chamber of Commerce Information Centre, the Vieux Moulin Marcoux of Pont-Rouge, the nature centre in Saint-Basile and 90 per cent of all cross-country and nature trails of all municipalities in the Portneuf constituency.
Mr. Chairman, like all hon. members, I deplore the fact that the government of Quebec has refused to allow municipalities to sponsor projects. As the former mayor of a municipality such as Ville Saint-Raymond, which has developed enormously and introduced many projects in this area, I must say I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Quebec government and I hope the minister will exert all the pressures required so that municipalities can benefit from these programs even if this would mean deleting water and sewer systems, parks and so on from these programs. I believe that all the development that a municipality can enjoy would be very welcome within such programs.
On this same topic, I would like to call the attention of the hon. minister and all members of this House to another program which 1 believe will be ideal in developing a true policy of permanent employment development in constituencies such as mine. 1 sincerely believe that the Local Economic Development Assistance program, or LEDA, will become the most valuable of all programs introduced by the minister.
The purpose of the LEDA program is to help communities with rather slow growth and high unemployment. It will play an active role in creating permanent employment. This program, which will offer funds for analysis and development, will also provide limited financial assistance to businesses in the community and will be very useful in my constituency. In other words, LEDA is quite welcome in Portneuf. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, an organization of my constituency has already filed an application for this agency which could be located in the southern part of the Portneuf constituency and would regroup about 15 municipalities. The organization which applied is very excited about that program, and I remain convinced that the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration, in conjunction with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, will consider favourably the application of the Chamber of Commerce of Donnacona-Cap-Sante which is very hopeful it will be accepted in order to have such an agency in their community. I am told that here we have at last a program which exactly meets the needs of the area. And to
that I would add, Mr. Chairman, that I am very excited about that agency we could create there and which would be a great success, I am sure.
I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I ask myself a few questions about the number of projects which will be accepted. People in the department informed me that once again, the applications will outnumber by far the projects which will be given the go ahead. Furthermore, I was told that the projects which are liable to be approved are those coming from areas with the highest unemployment rate. 1 would like to see the minister make an assesment or an in-depth study on all the applications he will receive, with the co-operation of his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and, if necessary, to increase that budget envelope since that program will be by far the most effective in helping the small and medium-sized businesses in our areas. We should invest in the LEDA program since it should be emphasized to create permanent employment in our areas. The creation of such an agency meets also the expectations of business leaders who constantly face the administrative burden of all the job creation programs offered by both the federal and provincial governments. I think such an agency would be a necessary tool for the economic recovery of our area.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put two questions to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. First, considering the number of applications received for community development projects, I would like to know whether his department will increase the funds earmarked for that program. Second, considering the high unemployment rate in Quebec, I would ask the minister whether it is possible that all LEDA projects suggested by the organizations be approved. He could answer my questions afterwards, but in concluding I would like to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration, his parliamentary secretary, the member for Louis-Hebert as well as all department staff who in my opinion are doing effective work.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his kind remarks. I will make sure the parliamentary secretary hears of this. I know he likes to hear remarks like that. I will make my first job the transmission of the hon. member's comments to him. 1 would like to be able to say that we had more money to put into these projects. 1 agree with the hon. member. They provide a very important service.
Community development projects in terms of applications in relation to funds available are running four to one. Hon. members will recognize the tough job it is to make decisions on what must be cut out. I am attempting to persuade my colleagues in government that perhaps additional support will be necessary. If I can make a small unpaid political announcement, I am sure that any further representations by members on both sides to that extent would be of great help in making
December 8, 1980

my case. Therefore, 1 very much appreciate the remarks of the hon. member.
On the LEDA program, I agree fully. It is one of the most important things we are trying out. If it works, it has the opportunity to create long-term jobs where there are not jobs now. That is the real trick to it and that it what we are trying. We want to move away from short-term annual job creation to something which will allow communities that have not had much hope to be able to do it on their own. They can use government to assist them in their own job creations, working with small businessmen and non-profit organizations in their own areas. That is the basic formula behind the LEDA program.
At this point all we are able to do is to try 15 or so projects across Canada. That is all the money available under this year's estimates. I can state the initial success in take up. We have already received approximately 40 applications for these projects, and more will be coming in. Again it will be seen that this is a very tough job.
The criteria are not exactly as it was stated by the officials. In fact, decisions will be made-I hesitate to say this because there will be some pressure-by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and myself. We will personally review each application to try to get a mixture of projects across Canada so that we have a variety of circumstances that we can judge. We will try to determine whether something can work in a small community as opposed to a downtown area of a city.
We will try to determine where the programs work most effectively. We want to try different kinds of cases and approaches to see how we can get a basis or formula for a more extensive program in the years ahead, if it works. If it proves to be successful, we will go forward with additional requests for more money. In the meantime, I hope the hon. member will continue to make speeches as he just did encouraging my colleagues to support us in adding further fuel to the fire.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk to the minister about the immigration offices at Douglas and Pacific Highway. I have already given him notice. I hope he got the note so that he will have the file ready and be able to talk about it.
I hope the minister is aware that that office, which is a border crossing point on the Pacific coast, is the busiest west of Toronto. I hope, too, he is aware that the traffic at Douglas has increased many, many times over the past five to ten years. I suspect he is aware that the man-hours allocated to those offices have not increased at all in spite of the incredible increase in traffic. In other words, though the traffic has increased five or ten times in the past ten years with people coming across the border, the customs officers, who are the first line of defence at the border point, have not had their man-hours increased. I doubt whether the staffing of the immigration office at Douglas has been increased in the past five to ten years.
I begin by asking the minister some statistical questions. First, how many entrants per year have there been in the past
Supply
five years at Douglas or Pacific Highway, or a combination of the two if he would like to combine those two offices? How many applications for sponsorships, permanent residence, whatever the classification may be, are being processed per year at Douglas? Is the minister aware that at Douglas there is now a three-month waiting period for an interview at that point? Will the minister answer those questions for me?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to give an immediate response to the hon. member. I will ask my officials to check on the conditions at the Douglas port of entry which he raised and report to him as soon as we can. At the present time we just do not have the specific figures that he requested on the table. We will get them for him as soon as possible.


Benno Friesen: If the minister does not have the exact figures, is he aware that the increase in volume is phenomenal at that border point? Will he concede that point? He nods his head and admits that he does.
I come to the second point I would like to make. I hope the minister is aware that in 1977 the immigration officers at all border points were classified as PM-Is. At that time, officers at Dorval and Toronto were reclassified as PM-2s. Their salaries were increased retroactively to October, 1976, over one year. I concede to the minister that traffic increased at Toronto and Dorval. The minister has already agreed it increased at Pacific Highway and Douglas and Vancouver international airport. I ask a simple question. If the officers at Dorval and Toronto warranted a pay increase retroactive for over a year, why was not the same done for those doing the same kind of work at Douglas and Vancouver international airport?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am very much aware of that condition. The last time I was in the British Columbia region, I spoke with the director general of the region about that problem. All I can say to the hon. member is that we are looking at it. We hope to be able to rectify it within a short time. It is now going through the machinery. We will try to correct it, but we first have to do an assessment of the volumes and make the calculations based upon the actual numbers and present that to Treasury Board.


Benno Friesen: That really is not good enough. I do not know if the minister is aware that a month or six weeks ago an officer was shot at Douglas. They have regularly to deal with dangerous people at that point. The danger level there is just as high and possibly more than at airports. They face those issues-problems and volume. As I have already indicated, they are three months behind in interviews at Douglas.
The minister talks about putting this through the machinery. It is my understanding that a task force was appointed in July, 1980, to look into this and to review the duties of PM-Is. Their survey is to be completed in April, 1982. I wish to ask the minister whether it will be April, 1982 before the task force will have its report for him.

December 8, 1980
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the actual survey of the volumes going through the ports of entry on the west coast has now been completed. Those numbers are now being analysed and based upon that analysis we will make recommendations to the Treasury Board. There are a number of steps that have to be taken. I am sure the hon. member knows, as well as I do, the variety of steps through the Public Service Commission which must be properly and carefully followed so as not to make any mistakes. The first round of analysis has been done and we will be making those submissions.


Benno Friesen: 1 would simply like to ask the minister why was it so much easier to go through the machinery for those immigration officers in Malton and at Dorval without having to wait so long? If you are going to promote on the basis of workload and responsibility, would it not have been right and fair to examine all of the offices across Canada and give all of the PM-Is a promotion to PM-2 based on the kind of workload they are faced with? Why was there a discrepancy in the first place?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the survey analyses of volumes at the ports of entry are done on a two-year cycle. The last survey done two years ago clearly demonstrated a substantial difference in the Malton and Dorval airports compared to those on the west coast and other ports of entry. The second cycle of survey analysis has been completed on a national basis. It is our expectation it will show the volume has substantially increased at the west coast ports of entry and based upon that analysis we will then make recommendations to Treasury Board to change the classification and the salary rankings of the officers working there. That is the reason there was a distinction. The other two posts were administered based upon the analysis done two years ago.


Benno Friesen: If this is now based on volume, can 1 have the assurance the issue will be settled long before April, 1982?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


Benno Friesen: It will be. When the minister stands up to answer, could he give me an indication of the target date when this is going to be settled and whether this is going to take care of all of the immigration officers at Douglas-Pacific, at the Vancouver international airport, at the various other immigration offices, the offices of the professional people downtown, as well as the new immigration office which is going to be in Surrey? In other words, is it going to be across-the-board to all the officers who are deserving?


Lloyd Axworthy: M'r. Chairman, it would be my hope to have that re-evaluation of all the ports of entry completed and the submissions made within a matter of three or four months and the results will be known then. I will make sure the member gets the results for the Douglas port of entry at that time.


Benno Friesen: I take it, then, if you have the results in three or four months, that the new salary schedules could be operative within the next six or eight months, certainly before the end of 1981, and that would have been passed by Treasury Board at that time.
I should like to move to another question which apparently came up some hours ago when the minister, in answer to a question of another hon. member, referred to the Buffalo shuffle. My understanding of what he is saying is that somebody who is here on a visitor's visa, let us say relatives of Canadian citizens, can go down to Buffalo and be deemed to be residents in the United States, process their papers and come to Canada by that direction. Is that true or am I misunderstanding?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it is not a blanket exception. We would still expect the large proportion of those who apply to do so from their country of origin. Only in cases considered to be of national interest or where there is a very strict requirement would we work on an individual basis. It may be that because of illness or let us say, reasons of compassion, such an arrangement would be made. It would be monitored very carefully. The decision would be made at the national headquarters and there would not be blanket coverage. The normal procedures would still apply. That is the basis upon which we negotiated with the Americans.
Frankly, there was a tendency in the last two or three years to abuse that reciprocity agreement. That is why the Americans and ourselves ceased to use it for a period of time. I met with the American officials in Washington last spring to discuss the matter with them and with the assistant secretary of state responsible for visas. We thought there could be proper arrangements which would be very carefully controlled. My officials negotiated that kind of agreement and it is just being finalized. The actual terms of the agreement will be available to members of the House.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I want the minister to know I am not trying to promote that kind of a scheme. 1 believe in the policy under which intending immigrants apply from their own countries wherever possible. If that scheme is to be the policy of the department then surely it is not only Buffalo but also Seattle, for example, Fargo and all of these other cities. It is going to be a principle across northern United States.


Lloyd Axworthy: A U.S.-Canadian agreement.


Benno Friesen: A U.S.-Canadian agreement. Okay. I have another series of questions which are of great concern to me. As the minister knows, 1 have a lot of immigrants coming to my constituency. He may be curious to know that between the May and February elections the voters' list in my riding increased by 6,000 so there is a fair movement into my constituency. I spend a lot of time intervening on behalf of those who have applied for sponsorships under the various categories of the act. I am very concerned about the great disparity in the processing of applications. I have, at present, 20 active cases on file in my office and 14 of these have had serious problems in processing; not simply routine, but serious problems. Immigrants come to me wondering if there are
December 8, 1980

scams taking place in the foreign offices. I would like to ask what kind of security arrangements are in place in immigration offices around the world? For example, when we worked on this act in 1976, I was on the committee which studied this particular legislation and I badgered the health officials from the department asking them for a provision which would allow for a second opinion in terms of health. It is all too easy for an applicant to become the victim of one person's judgment in another country. Immigrants have come to me suspecting the medical officer is "on the take." Can the minister give the House an indication of what security arrangements there are in immigration offices around the world to make sure that applicants are not victims of any kind of scam?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I tried to explain when we had the discussion on Friday; it is necessary to look at the changes in the act introduced in 1976 to understand why, in many respects, we are facing long delays. 1 think members of Parliament in their wisdom decided to put the major priority in our immigration law upon family reunification and set certain clear guidelines for what that reunification would involve, particularly in the opportunity to bring in relatives under the age of 21 as long as they were accompanied by a parent.
Those circumstances brought about an enormous requirement for the evaluation and checking of documentation. I think the hon. member would recognize that in countries where there are serious economic conditions of poverty, deprivation and suffering many people are anxious to get out. This is not the fault of the countries; it is just that there are serious problems. In these circumstances there is a tendency to use the immigration route as one very handy way of escaping from those tough conditions. The ability to test and evaluate documents becomes quite critical, because the act is quite clear that if you are under 21 you are allowed to come in, and if you are over 21 you are not. What this has really meant is that our officers abroad must spend an inordinate amount of time determining whether documents of proof of age are accurate, legitimate, proper and genuine. As a result, the system is slowed down in order that our officers may be assured that they are administering the act in a proper and legitimate way. Often this means going back and checking school records and voters list, looking at birth certificates and sometimes having to travel to small villages to try to determine sources, because that is the way the act reads.
At the same time there has been a substantial change in the composition of immigration. Close to 50 per cent of those coming into this country are now coming in the family class category, which again creates an increasing need for the checks I just mentioned. If there is any explanation for the long delays which are being encountered, it really is in some very real measure those major changes which were taking place under the act.
What I have done in the meantime, as I explained to the House before, is establish a task force to look at regulations,
Supply
procedures and processing under the act. That task force is presently examining all aspects and is focussing on this issue of whether it is possible to speed up application processing.
As far as security is concerned, there are security officers available at posts, but I do not think that is the problem. I think this is part of the rumour mill. People become frustrated and try to explain their frustration by looking for a victim or a scapegoat. In large part the system is overloaded at this point; applications in some countries number 200,000.
Hon. members can imagine the difficulty. The system simply bogs down with those large numbers. In the meantime, in defence of officials of various governments, including this one, the previous one and ones previous to that, we have been following a policy of restraint, which means that we have been quite careful about applying new person-years to the immigration service. The numbers have not gone up as much as is necessary. I have asked for some additional person-years this year. I hope to be able to get them, but at the same time our offices in many cases are understaffed compared with the workload they face simply because of the continuing restraint policy. Sometimes we are hammered by hon. members opposite. We are told there are too many public officials. At the same time hon. members opposite want good service for their constituents. In this case good service requires additional personnel to make sure processing takes place in a more expeditious fashion.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, 1 have heard explanations like that given by the minister many times, and I can understand the problem, particularly in Third World countries where there may be a paucity of records. However, the minister can also understand that if 50 per cent of immigrants come under the family class category and if there is some one who is 18 years old when he applies, it is easy for one official to victimize that person when he nears the 21-year-old bracket.
Of all of the applicants coming to me, people wanting me to help them bring relatives to Canada, the single most difficult constituent I have to help is a constituent who has relatives in the United Kingdom. I would like to ask the minister why it is so difficult for people in the United Kingdom to qualify to come into Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will ask my officials to get the exact number, but 1 can tell the hon. member that with the exception of the large number of Vietnamese refugees we have taken this year the largest source of immigration to Canada is still the United Kingdom. It has traditionally been that way, and it continues to be that way. My official has the number. I can give it directly to the hon. member just by way of example. The totals for the first six months of 1980 were as follows: 10,272 from Europe; 4,410 from the Middle East; 38,000 from Asia-that includes the large number of refugees who were coming in-and 8,625 from Great Britain. That is one country compared with all the European countries. The number of immigrants from the United States was 4,144; and 6,000 came from the Americas, that is, the entire Latin America-Carib-bean region. The hon. member can see that Great Britain is

December 8, 1980
Supply
the origin of by far the largest number of immigrants when compared with others.


Mr. Masters:: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to thank the minister for his sensitive assistance in the many special immigration cases which have occurred in my riding and which have required ministerial understanding. I say the same thing to the officials with whom 1 have come into contact. Because of the nature of the community and because it is an international port, Thunder Bay is a place where there are many immigration situations which require special study and understanding. This has always been received.
Tonight I would like to speak as a parent and a long-time observer of the Canadian scene. 1 would like to speak about one of the most challenging problems facing our nation today, the upgrading of our labour force. However, before looking at the present situation and what may lie ahead for Canadians, I believe it would be useful to have a historical perspective of training.
Technical and vocational education in Canada today is the product of evolution. Our early settlers learned by watching and practising, and during the nineteenth century such practical instruction became formalized as it was embodied in the school curriculum.
Federal government involvement in the field of education began with the proclamation of the Agricultural Aid Act in 1912 followed by the Agricultural Instruction Act in 1913. There have been various federal acts and agreements made under their authority since then except for the period 1929 through to 1937.
The federal government has played an increasingly important role in this field, particularly since the passing of the Technical Education Act of 1919 which clearly defined the responsibilities of the provinces and the federal government and stipulated that the federal government would share up to 50 per cent of the provincial expenditures for technical education. The federal involvement was justified on the basis of the need of an industrial nation for an adequate supply of skilled workers, provision of equality of education opportunity and the high cost to local and provincial authorities of providing adequate training programs and facilities.
It is interesting to note that in 1919 the federal government's contribution to technical education was $700,000 compared with its contribution of $800 million to adult occupational training in 1980-81.
The Adult Occupational Training Act of 1967 marked a significant new departure for Canada. It clearly separated the occupational training of adults from the education of the young. The then newly-established department of manpower and immigration was given responsibility for implementing the provisions of the act through the Canada Manpower Training Program. This act allowed the federal government to purchase training services from the provinces and private schools on behalf of its adult workers and to enter into contracts with employers. A striking feature of the act was its linking of occupational training for adults with the needs and opportunities of the labour market. The federal and provincial governments co-operate to determine training needs and develop training plans. Budget and guidelines are set nationally but focus on local needs and conditions.
In 1972 the act was amended significantly to increase its flexibility. The program was made available to more adults, some of the restrictions on the provision of industrial training were lifted and certain sections which were no longer relevant were repealed.
While it is very easy to sit back and criticize the training carried out under the act, the fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have benefited from the program. Without it many of them would not have had the opportunity to learn skills or to improve their skills.
As in any program, there is always room for improvement. At the present time, two task forces are studying it, and their recommendations may have a great influence on the future direction of training in Canada. They are the parliamentary task force on critical skills for the eighties, headed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), and a high level task force reporting to the chairman of Employment and Immigration Canada, which will work to develop a comprehensive employment strategy for the eighties. As a result of these studies, there will, no doubt, be proposals made to increase the effectiveness of the training program.
For many years 1 have had an interest in the way in which young Canadians are prepared for their careers. That interest has increased since I became a member of Parliament and have had the opportunity to discuss with other hon. members the relationship between education and employment across the country.
It is my opinion, and 1 am sure that many other hon. members will agree, that we have not always been doing a good job of preparing students for the labour market. Not only have we failed in many instances to give students the technical skills that the jobs of the future will require, we have also failed to provide them with an elementary understanding of the world of work and the ways in which working life is different from the lives they have so far known-family life and school life. We have not told students about the jobs of the future and we have not found ways to give them the hands-on experience that will reveal their strengths and weaknesses, their likes and dislikes, and what in general they can expect of work.
Too many students are making decisions about their education and the career they hope to pursue without adequate information and without much thought. Too many students are graduating without any thought to the labour market and the places in that market where they may find a niche. I have heard estimates that one-third of our graduating students cannot say what occupations they would like to follow. I suspect that there is another third of our graduating students who, although they can say what jobs they would like, have only the most elementary knowledge of the world of work.
December 8, 1980

A lot could be said on this subject about the needs of students and the problems which so far have hindered our attempts to prepare them for the working world. There is a big job to be done and those who tackle it-employers, educators, governments and students-deserve every support and encouragement.
The experts tell us that the next decade will be marked by considerable industrial and labour market adjustment, and shifts away from traditional approaches to training will be inevitable. New initiatives and innovative methods, responding quickly to local and regional needs, will have to dominate future training systems. Obviously, everything cannot happen at once. But where we can, we must move quickly to bring about meaningful changes to existing situations.
Now I would like to speak about another subject, if I may, Mr. Chairman. When Parliament opened in April, the priorities and directions of the new administration were stated in the Speech from the Throne. You will recall that the throne speech acknowledged that Canada, like other countries throughout the world, faces difficult economic times. Canadians recognize that the state cannot possibly meet every demand or satisfy every group. But the throne speech laid down a very important principle as a touchstone for this government's policies. We are committed to helping first those who need help most.
The intention is to build upon Canada's comprehensive social security system which was put into place during the 1960s and 1970s. Over that period, the federal government's social policy was aimed at providing Canadians with virtually cradle-to-grave security against extreme deprivation caused by age, illness or loss of employment. Many of the programs that were introduced or improved had broad terms of eligibility and were therefore very expensive. Indeed, these programs accounted for a very large part of the increase in the government share of gross national expenditure between 1966 and 1976, when that share rose from 30.9 per cent to 40.2 per cent. We have now reached a period when we must target scarce resources on special needs groups.
Last June, the Minister of Employment and Immigration introduced a $137 million package of employment measures and made a major step by targetting-that is, by reaching out directly to those who traditionally receive little or no benefit from the economic growth of the country. The new job-creation programs and training initiatives introduced by the minister focus on the needs of natives, women, young people and other groups facing special difficulties in finding and retaining jobs. In addition, extra jobs are being provided in areas of high unemployment. In short, a fundamental pillar of our employment policy is to bring these disadvantaged people into the community of employment opportunities.
That term "disadvantaged" means people who, because of artificial social barriers, ranging from administrative hangups to downright discrimination, are prevented from realizing their full potential in the labour market. This group includes women, who make up 51 per cent of the population and 39 per cent of the labour force. It includes native people whose
Supply
numbers are growing quickly in relation to the total work force. It includes the handicapped who face not only the challenge of overcoming their disability, but must also contend with the invisible barriers of prejudice and ignorance that bar their entry into the labour force.
Our commitment is to break the back of the problem-to bring these people back into the economic mainstream. Obviously, the new employment measures are not the entire solution to the problems faced by people with special needs, but they are a beginning-and a good beginning. They build on already established programs offered by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to help these people achieve their full potential.
For example, under the Canada manpower industrial training program, 85 per cent of salary can be paid for special needs clients, and as a means of stimulating the employment of women in jobs traditionally reserved for men we subsidize 75 per cent of the cost of job training for women in some of these lines of work.
The local employment assistance program, LEAP, is a particularly important program. Its principal advantage is that it allows for the creation of ongoing businesses which will provide jobs for the chronically unemployed or for the establishment of projects which will develop job skills for the chronically unemployed to help them integrate into the regular labour market.
LEAP projects have already created many jobs for disabled Canadians. Perhaps the most interesting program for helping people with special needs to find and keep jobs is Outreach. Outreach projects serve people who are not able to make effective use of the regular services offered by Canada employment centres. By way of illustration, in 1979-80 an estimated 9,500 physically and mentally disabled persons across Canada received specialized services through the program.
This government has also made some progress in asserting the principle of affirmative action in the public service and in job-creation programs by resetting the dials to encourage the hiring of a greater proportion of people who experience particular difficulties in finding suitable employment. We are also looking at the possibility of making the adoption of affirmative action principles a condition for large contractors who want to do business with the Government of Canada. These are the kinds of actions which make for more efficient use of human resources. The idea is to enable these people to make an important contribution they are not allowed to make today.
It is clear that the federal government must give leadership and introduce vigorous programs to ensure that individuals with special employment problems are not frustrated in their yearning to participate fully in the economic life of Canada. Much remains to be done, but we already have taken many important steps toward our goal of ensuring that all Canadians enjoy rising levels of income.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to refer to the statement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration when he announced his new employment measures in the

December 8, 1980
Supply
House of Commons on June 2. He indicated at that time that he proposed to bring in another program offering incentives so that persons with severe employment problems might be employed in the private sector. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the minister when the government intends to announce the new program.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very fine words. He illustrates a point which has been made several times in the discussion of these estimates. There must be a very strong and very forceful sense of leadership from the national government to meet our employment training programs. We must develop a national employment strategy which covers the country from one end to the other and ensures equal access and opportunity for all Canadians. I feel this point must be underlined time and time again in demonstrating the direction in which we must go in the next four or five years. We cannot afford to let our programs become fragmented or our approaches divided simply along provincial and regional lines. There must be a national approach to programs. Therefore, it is very important to support the programs put forward in the budget and the national energy program which would give us the resources to meet those demands.
As far as the question concerning an additional program to provide incentives for the private sector to hire disadvantaged workers is concerned, we have been working on that program for three or four months, culminating in the examination we have made of the industrial adjustment programs which must be brought in to respond to the issues of declining industries and declining communities. We have taken some time because we wanted to ensure that we consulted adequately with the different groups involved.
In this case I want to pay particular tribute to the work of the parliamentary committee on the disabled which is chaired by the hon. member for Don Valley East. 1 have now had two or three meetings with that committee which is comprised of members from both sides of the House. They have provided me with very valuable information concerning the employment problems experienced by those who are handicapped in Canada. Not only have they provided me with their experience, they have some very forceful and specific recommendations. We really wanted to wait until we had the ability to gather the information and ideas developed by that task force.
1 met with them approximately ten days ago. We will be incorporating much of the findings and proposals of that parliamentary task force into our own work. Now that we have those findings, we will be able to present to cabinet submissions for an employment program dealing with the needs of the disadvantaged. If we are lucky and able to get proper scheduling on the cabinet timetable, I hope to be able to make some announcement of those programs either just before Christmas or certainly within two or three weeks after. We wanted to wait to make sure we had the full information.
The program has not yet been fully decided by cabinet, so 1 cannot outline the details. But it will follow the basic principle of providing incentives to private employers to hire those with work disadvantages. We hope it will provide us with a certain approach which could be used in the development of a more broad-based employment strategy in the years ahead.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to convey to the minister that his immigration office in Mississauga is first class and that Jack McMillan, the key officer in charge, has the sensitivity and ability to do good work for Canada and has been doing so. The minister knows that I have a great number of immigration problems in my growing city, and I should like to ask him a number of questions with respect to them.
My first problem is the feeling of people that their member of Parliament can somehow work miracles for them, that the Immigration Act is not a question of one's status but who one knows and what strings one can pull. Unfortunately this spring the minister was involved in the case of Giuseppe Calamusa. I am not questioning the minister's honesty in this. 1 am looking at the compassionate grounds on which he managed to work things out for Mr. Calamusa and his family.
The minister will appreciate that the rest of us are members of Parliament and unfortunately not ministers of immigration. Therefore, we cannot do the wonderful things that were done for this particular person. Also he will appreciate that as members of Parliament we have people with immigration problems that are perhaps much more serious and at least as deserving, certainly in the eyes of the applicant, as those of Mr. Calamusa. When the minister bent over backwards and managed to exercise his discretion in favour of a family which, on any reasonable interpretation of the act, should have had their deportation confirmed, he leaves us as members faced with the position that the law is one way for some and not for others in the eyes of people with immigration problems.
I was wondering if the minister could tell us-and I hope he does not use all my time-what he can do to provide some sense of rule and regulation in this act so that we can firmly tell constituents that if they fall within the terms of the purview of the minister something can be done, and if not, they cannot expect any miracles to happen on their behalf just because they happen to know someone. I bring this seriously to the minister's attention because it is a problem faced by members on both sides of the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I find it a little unusual that the hon. member would raise one case because I see around me seven, eight or nine members of the House who in the last month or so have brought cases to me for adjudication, where they wanted some settlement based upon reasons of compassion or whatever. I could not give the exact number, but a fair number have been adjudicated thusly. So, it would be wrong to say that there has been only one miracle; there are no miracles, but judgments are applied.
The hon. member himself has made representations on behalf of some of his constituents. We have looked at them
December 8, 1980

carefully and in some cases have said that if there are reasons and grounds for compassion, we would issue ministerial permits. In order to provide the member with some indication of what is involved, in 1979 before I became minister, close to
16,000	ministerial permits were given. 1 am pleased to report that the number this year will be substantially less. 1 do not want to make a direct correlation, but I suggest that perhaps we are not quite as loose with ministerial permits as the department was under my predecessor who was a member of the Conservative government. But I will not make that comparison; 1 will not say that that is why there were so many permits.
The particular case the member cited was not in itself unique. A number of similar cases are being judged all the time. It is just that that one had a highly emotive quality and I would suggest some political quality to it as well, caused by some of his friends and colleagues. As 1 have said before, 1 do not pretend to be infallible. Sometime we will make mistakes in judgment. If 1 err, I try to err with some degree of compassion, and I think I have tried to treat some members and their cases in that way.
1, too, have become concerned about the area of discretion. One of the first questions I asked when I became minister was whether there was any jurisprudence upon ministerial discretion, whether there was any precedent which 1 could use. Nothing had been codified, no one had sat down and said, "Here is the precedent which might be used to guide your decision". That is one of the reasons I set up the special task force-to develop some advice and recommendation on the area and orbit of ministerial discretion which we might use, that I would use to guide my actions.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I thank the minister for that answer.
The second problem I face concerns the number of people who come from, or who have relatives in, pretty disorganized parts of the world. I refer to Guyana, Indonesia, Ireland and Iran. I remind the minister of a letter I received from him on December 1 with respect to Iran. The minister said in his letter that he did not think the Armenian people in Iran were being prejudiced against or were really true refugees. He went on to say:
In the new Iranian constitution, for example, Armenians along with other religious minorities have been guaranteed certain fundamental rights by the government of Iran.
The minister knows that those same fundamental rights are granted to people in Indonesia. They were certainly granted to people in Vietnam. They are certainly granted in Guyana and I am sure they are granted in Soviet Russia. Is the fact that written constitutions in countries like Iran guarantee religious minorities fundamental rights sufficient to make them nonrefugees because of the nature of their constitutions?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to answer the hon. member by pointing out that under our Immigration Act the definition of a refugee is taken from the United Nations Commission of Refugees, which says that in order to be a
Supply
refugee one must be under threat of political persecution. We interpret that definition as broadly as we can. Anyone who feels directly threatened or in some danger within the regime of his or her own country can go to any one of our offices and apply for refugee status. They would have their application considered on those grounds, or on their merits. There may be cases of Armenians in Iran but our evidence thus far has not demonstrated they are a class or group that is being persecuted generally. 1 am certainly prepared to accept further evidence from the hon. member. They certainly have the right to make application as refugees. The difficulty presently in Iran is that we do not have an embassy, for reasons of which the hon. member is fully aware. This makes it far more difficult and I apologize for that. If there is something the hon. member would like to bring to my attention which would shed more light on this, I would be glad to consider it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have also written to the minister in connection with our offices in other parts of the world. I find that our offices in New Delhi and Port of Spain are particularly difficult. The minister is aware of a number of cases I have had in which spouses of Canadian citizens have had to wait for more than a year and a half for their spouse to be able to enter Canada under the family class. That strikes me as unconscionable and ridiculous. I was wondering what the minister can do with respect to spousal applications for family or reunification in the offices of New Delhi and Port of Spain. The delays are interminable. It is not sufficient to say that there is not the staff there. Surely to goodness different classes of family applications can be considered in a better priority. Surely when a man is separated from his wife by the artificiality of an immigration law he should not have to wait nine months to a year and a half to finally get someone to look at the medical histories and approve that application. Will the minister tell me what he can do about that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, while the act has not set any priorities between the class of relatives, it would be brought under the family class. As a matter of policy we try to give priority to spouses. There are often real delays, particularly in the two offices the member mentioned, New Delhi and Port of Spain. As 1 told the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock there are some reasons to explain this. There is the enormous backlog in applications. We must do very serious checking in those areas just to clarify documents. But we do have this task force which is looking at these procedures and trying to streamline them to see if there are ways of providing for some shading to give preference to those who have spouses. I expect to have that report very soon.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The member for Surrey-White Rock brought up the problem with respect to immigration from the United Kingdom. As the minister knows, the type of family application there is essentially assisted-relative applications as opposed to family class applications. We have a number of situations where people could very easily adapt in Canada but are nevertheless refused entry. I could give the minister chapter and verse on a number of applications but I do not think it

December 8, 1980
Supply
would be fair at this point to mention their names in this House. Young people with technical skills, mechanics, electrical technicians and so on have been told in our U.K. offices that there is no job for them here. Clearly their families and family businesses here could put them to work right away. It strikes me as improper that these people should be kept out of Canada when they would fit into the country very well. They have an education standard at least as high as the average Canadian. They have families with businesses here where they could be immediately employed. Is there no difference in criteria for applicants from the United Kingdom, a nation of people who can easily adapt to Canada, or from Ireland, where there is a great deal of religious tension, a country whose people could easily adapt to Canadian life? For years our traditional flow of immigrants has come from these countries. At one time people were entitled, as an absolute right, to come to this country if they were British. Is there any reason why these people should not be given preference over people coming from other countries where their customs and language are not ours?


Lloyd Axworthy: The immigration law does not recognize a special preference to any one country. The law is written by Parliament to apply certain standards, either for family, compassionate, humanitarian or economic reasons. The difficulty we often experience is that those who are coming from the United Kingdom often times make applications for cousins or more distant relatives. I know that is why the hon. member receives complaints. In those cases they must apply under the assisted-relative class. They must show some harmony with the labour market requirements and they must show job authorizations. We cannot and will not impose any special category to say that country of origin is important. The same standard must apply equally to everybody. I can understand the frustration in those cases and why some people do not understand it. But that is the way the law was written. 1 think it represented the wish of Parliament and of Canadians that we do not have a discriminatory immigration policy but one which is simply based upon criteria of what is required in our own labour markets, what is required to unify families and what is required to make judgments on humanitarian grounds. Those are the only criteria we can use.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: With respect to the task force the minister spoke of, will he add to it the obligation that they look at whether we should not also impose the criterion that the person have the ability to fit into our socioeconomic system in Canada? Should they not look at whether the applicant's cultural background and so on is similar to our culture, and that his language is similar to ours? Will the minister have the task force examine those as further criteria in determining the suitability of immigrants?


Lloyd Axworthy: That really is not the mandate of the task force. 1 have instructed them to look at questions of regulations and procedures within the process of the act. If there were to be major amendments to the act-and that would require a major amendment-it would be something which
should go through Parliament and be considered by parliamentarians, not necessarily by outside consultants who are simply working to streamline the procedures.
I do not think this is the initiative which should be taken. The present Immigration Act has been in operation for a little less than two years and there is still much to learn about it. There may be a time when changes will be required, but 1 do not think that we should get into judging suitability. Obviously there is some judgment made by our officers abroad with regard to individual applications. There are in the act certain provisions which prevent undesirables, for example, people who have bad records, from coming into the country, and further restrictions on medical grounds. But if we start trying to determine who fits our country, we get into a very dicey area and one which I am sure we would not want to impose upon the officials abroad. I am most comfortable, as a Liberal, with the way the act is currently constructed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: From time to time people in my riding who are clearly illegal immigrants into Canada come to see me. I also know that a person can get off the airplane at Toronto international airport and, if they look right, they will probably have no difficulty with the minister's staff, particularly if it appears they are coming here for a holiday and have lots of money to pay their hotel bills and so on.
When 1 go to Australia 1 am required, even as a member of Parliament and of this House, to get a visa. Why do we not have a visa system, aside from our obvious interaction with the United States. If I go to Mexico, or many other countries, I need a visa, but people who come from a great number of places around the world do not need visas when they come to Canada. Would that system not assist the minister in controlling illegal immigration? I say this to the minister because I happen to know a number of people in my constituency who are illegal immigrants. Some of them run businesses and own property, and I would not be surprised if they vote in federal elections.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to ask what party they vote for, but 1 already know the answer. There are presently some 80 countries from which we require visas. Any addition to that number is a matter of government policy and must be considered by cabinet each time. If the hon. member has information to suggest that some country is beginning to flood us with illegal immigrants, then we would have to take a look at imposing visa regulations. For example, we recently put visa regulations on Haiti in order to stem the flow of a large number of illegal immigrants from that country into Canada. We take a case by case approach and we are certainly prepared to receive any information which the hon. member might have.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is there any way the minister can speed up some of the answers to queries 1 have made of his office? The minister's staff is pretty good sometimes, but a number of situations have arisen where I have had to make a number of
December 8, 1980

representations and phone calls to the minister's office. I looked at one letter tonight with respect to Anna Seawack, a young lady who came here from Poland. The family who brought her over wanted their child to learn Polish and Anna Seawack, a first cousin, was chosen. These people wanted to be very legal about the matter so they went to the employment office where they were told that a work permit was required because she was working as a babysitter or domestic.
The minister's office said that Anna Seawack would have to go to Detroit and do a Detroit shuffle rather than a Buffalo shuffle. Anna Seawack was a bank clerk in Poland so she could not possibly do anything like babysitting in Canada and certainly could not teach Polish to a young child because after all she was a bank clerk and-


Denis Éthier: Would the hon. member like to finish his point because his allotted time has expired.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Would the minister tell me why we must go through this red tape?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the committee to split the next round of the official opposition between the hon. member for Waterloo and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka?


Denis Éthier: The hon. member suggests that on the next occasion when a Conservative member would speak, two members would speak for ten minutes each instead. Obviously, there would be no difference in the total time consumed. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few points with regard to the refugee problem which I want to put on the record. I preface my remarks by saying that we in the Niagara Peninsula are very well served by the immigration officers there. I centre out the director in charge of Niagara Falls, Mr. Don Bandy, and one of his field workers, Mr. Carl Nauman, with whom we have been working for a number of years.
That being said, I take great exception to the former speaker's remarks in the sense that he would have a very preferred list of people who could come into this country. This is not the way in which the country was built or the way in which it came together. The criteria in place now for the admission of immigrants to the country is fair. It can be improved on in some ways but, by and large, it allows the greatest number of people the greatest chance to come to Canada and take part in our great country.
Last summer I visited Hong Kong. While there, I visited the refugee camps. In so doing, I obtained a first-hand view of the conditions in those camps. I had a chance to speak with the officers who were in place, and they informed me that the conditions from which these people came in Vietnam were virtually too abhorrent to describe and beyond anything we could imagine. As for the conditions in the camps for the
Supply
people who were scheduled to come to Canada, the camps were well run, clean and the people were well taken care of.
One might wonder why I bring this matter up. It is because I want to make a comparison between the conditions from which these people have come and the conditions of the surrounding area. These refugees have difficulty learning our language and adapting to our way of life, but if we were only to admit people who were exactly like ourselves, it would take away a great deal from the flavour and fibre which makes this country strong. It is for that reason that I encourage the minister to admit the number of refugees scheduled to come to Canada from Vietnam and southeast Asia.
By sharing what we have, Canada can show other countries that it is willing to open its doors and its heart to people who are less fortunate. There are those who would say that these men and women will take jobs from Canadians. The minister must consider that many of these people are willing to perform menial tasks which are not currently accepted by many of the workers in the country. I am not criticizing the general worker in Canada. I am saying that these people will do virtually any job because it is a chance for freedom. For us it is a chance to better ourselves and have the better things in life, but for them it is a case of life and death-no more or no less. It is for that reasons that these people who have taken a place in our society are welcomed citizens because they will help build this country in the years to come.
Some years ago a study was made of immigrants on the welfare and unemployment roles. It was found, in 1977, that .07 per cent of immigrants admitted to the country in the five years previous were on welfare-and not for the average length of time. In that respect they have taken their place as worth-while citizens.
I wonder if the minister could address himself specifically to the area of refugees who have come to this country or those it is proposed to admit. Maybe he could tell us if they have adapted and if they are contributing to the well-being of all people in the country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by recounting to members of the House an experience I had today when I met the Chong family representing the sixty thousandth refugees brought to Canada under the special program. They are two brothers and their wives and each family has three children. They were on their way to Goderich, Ontario. The sponsoring family, from the Roman Catholic Church in that area, thought they would bring them here to symbolize the quite amazing partnership that has taken place in this country in the last two years.
I should like to pay tribute in part, to my predecessors, Mr. Atkey and the hon. member for Sarnia who in this portfolio were very much responsible for putting the program together. I certainly would not want to take the credit for it because it was through them that the special refugee program was initiated. We are now simply able to complete it.

December 8, 1980
Supply
This was one of those moments that one remembers. As politicians we take a lot of harassment and abuse but this was one of the moments that makes public life worth while when one realizes that through some action of oneself and one's colleagues, something very important has been done for another human being. The kind of appreciation and gratitude expressed by the Chong family at being in Canada and also by the sponsoring family for the opportunity to share in the experience of helping these families to come and settle here, is something that 1 shall never forget. Members of this house who have had similar experiences in their ridings will realize how very important and remarkable the refugee movement has been in the last two years.
But the problem is not over, Mr. Chairman. Now that
60.000	people have arrived we are not stopping there; another
16.000	refugees will arrive in the years to come because the problems of refugees in the world are so immense. A very great effort has to be made by Canadians to make sure that they are settled in this country with care and sensitivity. These people have different languages, different customs and will require special consideration, training in languages, and must be found jobs and places to live.
It is for those reasons that the immigration paper presented to Parliament last October stated that the emphasis of this government in the next year or two will be on the establishment of major resettlement programs. We have been working quite closely with the voluntary sector and we give direct grants to community organizations under the immigration settlements assistance program so that they can provide counselling and orientation to help people settle in the community. The program will be extended and we plan to have immigration offices available across Canada to help in this resettlement program. We are also working with the provinces to make sure that schooling and other services are provided. As a government, we intend to concentrate on our responsibility to make sure that people settle into the country.
1 am a little fearful that we might simply bring people over, that the headlines would appear, and then they would be forgotten. We cannot forget, Mr. Chairman. We must work very hard at this. We will be able to rely upon that same degree of volunteerism and private participation, I hope, that enabled us to bring people over and to help them settle with a degree of grace, dignity and self-support.
I would urge those members who know of sponsoring families in their constituencies to use their good offices to ensure that this commitment and contribution continues. In some cases, we are into the much more difficult phase of ensuring that these people have a chance to become good Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the many questions from all sides of the House and am pleased to put a few myself. I should like to thank the minister for the co-operation I have received from his departmental officials. 1 do not always agree with their decisions, perhaps, but I appreciate their efforts.
There are two questions that I should like to put to the minister. Under the manpower training program, funds are provided for tuition in various vocations, trades and services and an allowance is made for people taking training. On the weekend it was brought to my attention that a particular service in which I have a peculiar interest, as I was a real estate broker for many years, is not covered. Real estate salesmen are not eligible under this program and 1 promised to try to find out why this is.
Anyone who wants to take this particular course in Parry Sound-Muskoka, some 100 miles north of Toronto, must go to Toronto and spend $300 or $400 for it as well as incur accommodation expenses. Five-week courses are to be offered by the community colleges early in the coming year. I wonder why these courses are not included in the program.
When I received my sales licence, I read the book through and then wrote an examination and that is about all there was to it. It is a lot more complicated now. The process of becoming a real estate broker is long and drawn out and I can only say thank the Lord I do not have to write the examination now. I should like the minister's comments on this.
I have listened to the questions posed to the minister on immigration-who gets in and who does not. A great many people contact me on this question. I wrote to the minister two or three days ago about the problem of a young Chinese girl from Hong Kong, a student who passed her examinations with outstanding results. She was given a work permit and is presently working in a Christian Horizon home in my village of Burks Falls where she is a counsellor. She certainly works more than 40 hours a week and certainly is not paid the highest wages. I believe she earns $9600 per year. Her work permit has expired and she will now have to return to Hong Kong. She is in the best of health but maybe that is against her! She is paying her way and doing a great job. It seems unfortunate that ministerial discretion cannot be exercised in this case. It has been mentioned that there is a possibility of a "shuffle off to Buffalo". I am delighted to hear that a plan is being suggested for a reciprocal arrangement whereby it would not be necessary for people to return to their native land, especially those from so far off. In this particular case, I wonder if the minister cannot take a second look.
1 am well aware, as the minister has said himself, that as far as decisions are concerned, he is all powerful. He can certainly make a ministerial decision but letters from his officials convey the impression-"that is it; that is all there is to it; according to the rules this is not a hardship case". And so forth.
Other members mentioned earlier that a great many applications from the British Isles do not seem to be approved. Several people have contacted me. I know the application is not here formally but this is a case about which we wrote to the department seven or eight months ago which was turned down. It concerned a retired RAF officer who is economically independent and young enough not to want to remain idle
December 8, 1980

when he comes here. 1 believe he has accounting experience. I just wonder why an application such as this one could not be considered.
I was pleased to learn the figures with regard to people coming from Europe and the United Kingdom. Three or four people in my riding have come over on visitor's permits. They bought property and have invested substantial amounts of money. 1 believe I have mentioned one specific instance personally to the minister. One family invested one quarter of a million dollars and another invested close to a half a million dollars. This money is being used for the tourist industry, to attract European tourists to this country. In one case an appeal was to be launched to bring over Dutch people; the other case concerned German people. Even on a quota basis, with the balance of payments the way they are now, I would hope the minister would look at the matter from a dollars and cents point of view. That kind of money coming into Canada should certainly count for a good many pluses on the point system, or whatever it is.
I want to commend to the minister the Orillia immigration office. That is the office with which I deal in my riding. We have had exceptional co-operation from its manager, Mr. Charles Brooks. I am very sorry to hear that he is reaching retirement age. However, I presume he will be replaced shortly by someone who will carry on his good work. My constituency office and myself are delighted with the co-operation we receive from him.
Under the winter works program, or whatever it is called now, many of the ridings have had their budgets reduced to $100,000, plus a little extra for the native people. But due to the serious employment situation with which we will be faced I hope some extra money will be found to take people off the unemployment rolls and provide work under this worth-while project. I know that my time has run out, but could the minister comment on some of those questions I have presented to him?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to answer briefly. If the hon. member wants more extensive answers, we could supply them by letter.
On the question of the admission of real estate agents under the training program, in each province where there are agreements we have what is called a manpower needs committee. Under that scheme, provincial officials sit down with federal representatives to discuss what kinds of training programs have the highest priority. Training programs must be run through their own institutions. The grading is simply done under what is called the greatest need because we have scarce resources. Real estate programs are just not considered to be as high a priority as those for machinists, pipefitters, etc.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Is that provincial or federal?


Lloyd Axworthy: It is a joint committee. We have officials from both levels of government. But I do understand that the real estate industry itself has its own program which it admin-
Supply
isters. On the immigration cases, I would be prepared to consider the ones which the hon. member has raised. I know the particular case of the Dutch family because the hon. member has spoken to me about that. This family had been told before coming to Canada that landed immigrant status could not be granted, althouth I believe I pointed out in the letter that they may become eligible under the entrepreneurial class. Again, this is something we could discuss with officials of the province of Ontario; the province has to certify that it is a legitimate investment in the business. However, I will be glad to follow that up with the hon. member.
In the other case, if the hon. member would like to refer the matter to me, I will be glad to take a look at it.


Mr. McLean:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues and other members of the House for allowing me some time before the close of this period.
I would like to turn to the question of the budget's effect on programs for women. It is evident that there will be increases in social affairs spending in the next three years. These are projected at 10.6 per cent, 6.3 per cent and 6.9 per cent. By contrast, total government spending for those same years was expected to be 12.8 per cent, 10.5 per cent and 10.1 per cent. Clearly, the funding for the envelope in which the minister's portfolios fall is not going to be held at levels sufficient even to keep pace with the inflation rates. As we are looking at estimates, what is the minister going to do to make sure that the level of funding is raising to a priority level in over-all government spending, particularly because of its prominent place in the throne speech and the minister's own commitments to women's programs.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member asked me that question because I think I shall be able to provide some answers which he will find welcome. While some restraints have been imposed on the social affairs committee, we have been quite successful in increasing substantially the funding for different women's activities under federal government jurisdiction. For example, the office of the co-ordinator of the status of women has had its budget doubled this year to provide for 12 new positions to allow for a greater degree of activity and co-ordination. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which also comes directly under my responsibility, has had its budget for 1980-1981 increased to close to $600,000 which again, represents almost a doubling of its budget in this budget year.
In the case of women's programs under the Secretary of State, whose department provides substantial support for research and operating grants for women's groups across the country, in August of this year the cabinet committee agreed to an increase of $500,000. This again provides a substantial increase, almost a doubling of the amount. In the women's bureau of the Department of Labour, again there has been a substantial increase in funding. It has had an increase of close to $300,000. In each of these cases of bureaus or operations directly affecting women's programs, we have been able to

December 8, 1980
Supply
affect substantial increases in the amount of personnel and the amount of money at their disposal.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Chairman, 1 thank the minister for those comments. It would appear, though, there would be major cutbacks in other areas in the light of the over-all balance unless there is a secret fund somewhere else.
More and more low-income mothers are going to work. Subsidized care is less available, and day care is costly, especially to people who can least afford it. The number of women in the labour force with children under the age of six now exceeds half a million. This puts enormous pressure on day care facilities. Non-commercial day care centres are 95 per cent subsidized. In 1978-1979 non-commercial day care increased by only 4.8 per cent while commercial and the more expensive day care increased by 28.3 per cent. I do not need to quote the comment made on behalf of the Canadian Council on Social Development on the need for a national day care policy. The minister is encouraging women to re-enter the work force through retraining and affirmative action programs. What is his position on a national day care policy and what has he done to see that this increasing need is getting the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? How many of those available dollars he told us about are going directly to this area of need?


Lloyd Axworthy: Along with the hon. member, I feel there is an essential requirement to improve child care services in this country. The difficulty we face as a federal government is that the determination of day care policy is very much a provincial responsibility and jurisdiction. They are responsible for the design, implementation and management of day care programs within each of their provincial regions. Our involvement with day care is to share the funding under the CAP program where we provide 50 per cent of the cost at the present time.
As most organizations have pointed out, in many instances the decision on day care must not only concern increased resources, but increased availability. The Minister of National Heath and Welfare made several comments about the need to do a basic review of the Canada Assistance Plan with a view to getting more guidelines or responsibilities attached to it regarding the allocation of these programs.
I do not have to remind the hon. member that there has been some discussion between the provinces and ourselves about the notion of block funding and we have lost control of much of the money we have given because we have not been able to set those guidelines in motion. With the review of the CAP, the Minister of National Health and Welfare intends to take a hard look as to how that can be more directly allocated toward child care programs. In the meantime, I would tell the hon. member that when we introduced the community services employment program this summer, we put a high priority on the employment of people in child care services across Canada.
One of the priority items for social services or community service groups across Canada is some degree of additional
assistance from the federal government by application through the community service program. This is given a very high priority. I do not have the latest figures, but I think close to 30 per cent goes into child care under our direct employment programs.


Walter Franklin McLean: I would like to press the minister a little on this. Is he prepared to use his office to press for the calling of a national conference on day care? I would also like to ask the minister about farm women. It will be known to him that the government recently announced that farmers will be able to claim wages paid to their spouses for farm work. One group excluded from the provisions is the category of spouses. They will not be able to claim unemployment insurance in the event that their jobs as farm wives are lost. What steps does the minister plan to take to remedy this oversight? Has he discussed this with the Minister of Agriculture?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will give a very short answer. I remind the hon. member that a very interesting conference was held in this city last week by farm women at which a number of these proposals were made. That is probably where the question came from, I would guess. This is a very important issue. If I could return the compliment, I would say that improvements for farm women will be contained in the Minister of Finance's amendments to the Income Tax Act. 1 hope the hon. member will use his good offices with his House leader to make sure that bill receives very speedy passage through the House so that the measure can go into effect as soon as possible.


Walter Franklin McLean: In the moment or so left, 1 wonder if the minister could make reference to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the matter of equal pay for work of equal value. What action has the minister taken to persuade Treasury Board to live up to the government's stated commitment to justice and opportunity in the work place? There have been reports of resis'.ance. Can the minister comment on that.


Lloyd Axworthy: It seems so long ago, Mr. Chairman, but we had a fairly extensive discussion on that this afternoon. I refer the hon. member to Hansard. If it is not there, 1 will be glad to provide answers to him. Time does not allow a full exposition of a very important subject.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three matters I want to raise with the minister. I will do that as quickly as I can. 1 hope he can respond to them. 1 have a fairly simple question. Why is it that under the Unemployment Insurance Act real estate salesmen or brokers who are licensed must turn in their licences before becoming eligible for unemployment insurance? At this time of great difficulty in the real estate business, it is unfortunate and unfair for a licensed salesman or broker to be required, even though he is not working within the industry but may be looking forward to going back when there is an upturn, to relinquish his licence. It is his.
My second question has to do with the construction industry. Can the minister enlighten us as to what became of the recommendations contained in the report by the task force on
December 8, 1980

mobility in the construction industry? The minister well knows that mobility within the construction industry is a necessary prerequisite for maintaining a viable industrial sector.
People have to be encouraged to go to those areas where construction is taking place. A number of basic concerns were expressed in the report. I will run through them quickly. On the basis of presentations made to the task force by representatives of labour, management and government, it concluded the following major factors affect the movement of construction workers: room, board and travel allowance, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission mobility program, taxation and equities, industry practices, the Quebec construction industry labour relations act, a lack of information and the demand for and supply of labour, reciprocity and portability of health, welfare and pension plans, licensing and certification of trades and apprenticeship training.
I appreciate that the minister and the federal government do not have jurisdiction over all these areas. However, the minister and the government do have jurisdiction over certain of them or at least a shared responsibility. I am interested in knowing what, if anything, the minister intends to do to respond in a positive way to the many worth-while recommendations contained in this extremely well written, well thought out document which was presented more than two years ago to this government and the provincial governments.
This task force was set up as a result of a decision made by the first ministers in 1978. Its participants are representative of the various sectors within the construction industry. They have recommended such things as room, board and travel allowances in order to encourage people who must out of necessity be away from home, to allow them to live reasonably well while away and still maintain their family and their home where they live.
It also spoke about apprenticeship training and the need for some uniformity across the country. It is suggested the federal government might consider in one way or another influencing the provinces, where it clearly falls within provincial jurisdiction, to develop uniformity across the country in apprenticeship training and, therefore, high mobility.
There is so much more in the report. I cannot go through it all in the few minutes allowed to me. I would very much like the minister to devote a moment or two to that subject.
When doing so, he might consider another problem which directly relates to the construction industry and which is also part of the unemployment insurance scheme. In order to qualify for an insurable week under the unemployment insurance program, a person must have 20 hours of work with one employer. It is not inconceivable, in fact it is quite frequently the case, that people in construction do not get 20 consecutive, or for that matter 20 hours with one employer during a one-week period. Because they do not, they could move from one employer in the morning to another in the afternoon, but they might not have those 20 hours with one employer. Therefore, though they have completed 40 hours of work in a week,
Supply
it is not considered to be an insurable week under the act. This strikes me as being unfair.
Will the minister consider whether or not there might be justification to base the payment and the determination of payment on individual industry sectors within the construction industry? From time to time there is work in one trade but there is no work in another. Yet, when calculations are made they are made on the basis of the industry as a whole and this can, and does, work a hardship on some workers.
1 should like to turn from that to a marginally related matter. On a number of occasions I have raised the problems presently confronting people within the auto industry who are not able to find employment but who are anticipating returning to the auto industry if, as and when it recovers. After checking it through, I find that although the minister did respond some months ago to the problems of Windsor, with its
20,000	auto workers and related industry employees unemployed, he did so by reducing the numbers of weeks a person must have worked in order to requalify. As I understand it, unfortunately the calculation is based on StatsCan evidence and when StatsCan evidence is gathered it is on the basis of a questionnaire. The people who were unemployed and who were working with the local manpower and unemployment offices in the Windsor area were informed when they discussed their dilemma with those local offices, that they need not go through the motions of looking for work in Windsor at that point simply because there was no work available. It made no sense to come in with trumped up lists of places they had been when everyone knew there were no jobs anyway. They were told not to go through that process. When StatsCan asked them if they were actively looking for work, they said no. That, as I understand it, reflected on the decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, therefore, the reduced number of weeks that had to be met for compliance was eliminated and they went back to the normal waiting period. I would like the minister to consider this and to indicate whether it is, in fact, an accurate reflection of what happened and, if it is, to find a new method of calculating. The infirm Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce told me the other night-1 am sorry he has broken his knee; I will go no further-that the difficulty is that the area within which Windsor workers are considered for unemployment insurance benefits includes Sarnia and other communities. Although conditions have improved in some of the outlying parts of that particular geographical area, they have certainly not yet improved substantially in Windsor. Can the minister tell us whether or not he is considering making an adjustment to what we might call the catchment area, 1 suppose, for unemployment insurance calculations as they apply to auto workers and other people who are now unemployed as a result of the downturn in the auto industry in the Windsor area in particular? There should be an effort to try to guarantee that when the industry makes its recovery, as we all hope it will, there will then be in that area skilled and trained people within that industry still available for work and that the people will not have been disentitled as a result of bureaucratic mix-up, or as a result of an unfair

December 8, 1980
Supply
boundary arrangement which really does not reflect reality, or disentitled because they were given information by the offices of the UIC and Manpower which, when relayed to Statistics Canada, turned out to their disadvatange.
Finally, I want to turn to a matter which was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, earlier this afternoon or this evening. The minister will recall that the hon. member was discussing affirmative action, which I think is of concern to a great number of people all across the country. I think we have come to the conclusion in a general way that if women are to achieve their rightful reward in the workplace they will achieve it only if there is an affirmative action program which is mandated.
It is becoming increasingly clear to most of us that although it might well be desirable, voluntary affirmative action is somewhat impractical. Compare our level of success with that of the United States. The minister surely knows that in the United States the laws have teeth and citizens can sue unfair employers under the affirmative action law. In addition to that, all large companies with federal contracts are monitored by government officials. They look to make sure that there is parity in the work force and parity in the workplace and that women are given a reasonable opportunity on the basis of their numbers, something they not only deserve but to which they are entitled. What they have asked, quite simply, is that if 45 per cent or 47 per cent of a town's workers are female, why is it that a local company might have only 20 per cent or less of its total staff composed of female workers with perhaps none of them in management? That is not uncommon. I am sure the minister knows that in the past few years the city of Chicago, the U.S. department of energy and even The New York Times have been successfully sued. They have had to pay many millions of dollars for not having lived up to the affirmative action program and the letter of the law.
That money has been paid to women who have suffered from job discrimination. I do not suggest for a moment that there are not people who comply willingly with what is accepted by most of us as a fair and rightful position, but I do suggest that far too many do not. I heard it said today that the federal government does some $11 billion worth of business through contracts purchased from private companies in the private sector, and I think it would be useful if the government were to implement as a matter of law that the rights of women are not to be discriminated against, and put into practice an affirmative action program with respect to those companies and, in all fairness, an affirmative action program within the various ministries. I mean one which works. Otherwise, I do not think we should enter into contracts with those companies. It would not take long. Within a short period of time they would be happy to comply and would in fact comply.
I have one final point to make. It is somewhat related although considerably different in many aspects. Some day we will have to look at new ways to get people who are handicapped into the workplace. I think we start from the wrong
premise. Somehow we look at a person who is handicapped and try to think of what job he or she could do. I think we will have to try to get people to start at the other end and assume that unless it is proved otherwise, handicapped persons can, in fact, undertake any job at any place of work, and insist that they be given an opportunity. I think it is only fair and I think we must undertake that if there is to be any kind of equality in this country worth speaking about.
With those few remarks, I invite the minister to comment on what I asked; if there is a moment left, 1 may wrap up, but I doubt there will be a moment left.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I understand that three minutes are left, so if I take two to answer, the hon. member will have one to sum up.
He asked me a number of very detailed and important questions. I will again treat them briefly, and if he is not satisfied, 1 will attempt to obtain the answers for him in a written form.
With regard to the question of real estate agents, let me tell him that under the Unemployment Insurance Act you are eligible for benefits only when you show that you can no longer perform the job to which you have been assigned. The only proof we have of a real estate agent being eligible is to take away his licence. Otherwise he or she could still go out and sell real estate, which means he or she would still be in the market. 1 think the hon. member would agree that we would not want that kind of double functioning, of being able to sell at the same time as being able to receive benefits. That is the reason there must be some proof of the fact that you are now eligible for benefits, that you can no longer work in your chosen profession.
On the mobility proposal in the construction industry, let me say that just two nights ago I met together with my colleague, the Minister of Labour, with the executive board of the construction trades. They made many of the same proposals. The one which attracted my interest most directly concerned mobility grants for workers. I told them at the time, and I repeated it in the committee, that this is a matter I intend to take up with the Minister of Finance. I think it is a very important recommendation and I see no reason why we could not introduce at an appropriate time when we find the money necessary. It makes good sense and I know I have the support of many of my colleagues.
On the question of the minimum insurability, I would remind the hon. member, just to clarify the record, that he said it would be 20 hours. As of January 1 of the coming year, 15 hours per work week of employment will be required. We are examining the issue of whether there should be one or more employers and we realize there is an inconsistency. 1 have referred this matter to the unemployment insurance review. As 1 have said before, they will be putting forward their discussion paper some time in the new year, and one of the items which will be examined is how we can have a degree
December 8, 1980

of equity extending to those who have a mobile profession, such as people in the construction trade.
On the matter of the Windsor area, I must confess that it has given me some trouble. We advised the workers there that because of the obvious condition of lay-offs they would not have to show up. I am not sure it was sufficient to change the actual statistics because we did work through a three months moving average. StatsCan uses that kind of equation. 1 think a much more important factor was the fact that there were other cities and town within the statistical region which have very low unemployment rates, and this brought the average substantially down. It goes back to an issue which many of my colleagues here have raised with me, particularly those from Quebec and New Brunswick. I guess I have spent more agonizing hours as minister trying to organize those economic regions than I have spent on many other issues. Again this is an issue we are addressing in the unemployment insurance review. 1 for one hope we will find an answer to it so I can get some rest on that particular matter.
Finally, with regard to affirmative action, I want to point out to the hon. member that the question of mandatory or compulsory affirmative action is being examined by the government. We recognize that the voluntary approach which has been used so far has resulted in only 18 agreements in the past three years, and I personally do not consider that good enough. However, I do not think we were able to go to the private sector until we did something in the public service. We have now introduced a program in the public service and we can legitimately say, "We have started our reform; now you should take a look at yours". I made several speeches to business groups-not to overwhelming applause, I suggest, but at least they were interested in hearing that we will be moving in that direction.
I do think we should not necessarily move in the same way as the Americans are moving. I think we can improve upon their affirmative action program and I would like to do so in consultation with the employers and the trade unions. I think it would be a much more effective program if they came on our side in that program rather than having government enforce it upon them. So we are holding a number of discussions with them. It is something which I intend to present to cabinet within the next month or two for their consideration, but it would need a fairly long period of consultation to make sure that there was consensus on the approach, style and method of that affirmative action principle.
Mir. Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I ask the minister to clarify whether he meant mobility grants when he was talking about the construction industry people or whether he meant tax relief for those who get reasonable expenses from employers.


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


Mr. Dawson:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a real point of order. After 14-3/4 hours, I was wondering if we could have the
Supply
permission of the opposition that the next 15 minutes will be shared by the hon. member for Restigouche and the hon. member for Spadina.


Denis Éthier: Earlier the hon. member for Calgary West requested the unanimous consent of the House to divide that party's time into two sections and the same request is now being made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Denis Éthier: If that is agreed, I will recognize the hon. member for Restigouche followed by the hon. member for Spadina for seven minutes each.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to join in a positive way with the previous speakers of today to second the motion and all the good things said about what is being done by the department, the minister, and as has been demonstrated today, by his parliamentary secretary.
When I talk about positive action, I am talking about all the good programs such as the community development program, young Canada works, LEAP, the Outreach program for the handicapped, LEDA in co-operation with DREE and various other projects. I might say I have the impression it might be an improvement to combine unemployment insurance with manpower once again. I want to take a minute to say something about that this evening so that the minister could have the department look at the manpower within the department in terms of the attitude of employees toward Canadian citizens who are required to go into these offices, whether they are soliciting help in locating positions or new employment, whether they are being placed through Manpower in new jobs, or whether they are applying for unemployment insurance coverage. Certainly this has been of some concern to me in the past. I do not want to generalize, but I am speaking specifically about the attitude of staff in some areas. It is important when we talk about a national government delivering these programs to Canadians to try to instill in the employees a sense of pride not only in their work but in the country, so that they can help with the whole question of unity and leave a good impression with those Canadians who go into these offices.
While I am listening as an elected member to requests from my constituents, all too often they comment on the attitudes of Manpower and unemployment insurance employees. 1 would suggest that some regional officers should get a little closer to members of Parliament. They should come out and meet members of Parliament in their constituency offices to find out exactly what are the comments of the elected representatives as to what they find and really feel about the manner in which these programs are being implemented.
Also on the subject of programs, I was somewhat distressed about the titles that are being used. I do not think Canadians need to be more confused about programs. I have noticed that throughout the bureaucracy we are using the word "community" all too often. For example, there is the community services contribution program, the Canada community services projects program, and now the community development program.
5520

December 8, 1980
Supply
It is difficult enough for the average taxpayer on the street to understand the various ramifications of the three levels of government-municipal, provincial and federal-without our contributing to this confusion by using similar titles in CMHC, Manpower and some of the other ongoing programs. It contributes to the confusion and makes everyone's job a little more difficult. This might be something to take into consideration when we are thinking of titles for these programs; we should try to avoid similarities. As I say, Canada Works, for example, would have been just fine to carry on under the title that everyone was becoming familiar with, and then we introduced it as community development. As I said, I want to put these brief remarks on record in order to join in with other members in congratulating the minister on his handling of a difficult task. It has been a long day and I will be sharing the time with the member for Spadina. I would like to leave a few minutes so that we could get a response from the minister. I was discussing with him the other day the question of the balance of service in given areas. In my own constituency I have an area where they are complaining that they do not have adequate service in some of the villages and outlying areas. They do not feel they are being adequately served by one or two days service per week. They would like to have someone located right in their community. I think that is a fair request. I wonder if I could get your reaction to what I have said, sir.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I know we have only a few minutes left but I want to tell the hon. member for Restigou-che that I agree with his principle that we should try to decentralize the services more directly. We have tried to do that through some of the new programs, as he knows. We have tried to do it through the community development program and by setting the priorities within each of the provinces and regions so that the work projects would reflect the interests of those areas. We have worked that out at the local advisory board level in the constituencies as well as at the regional level. As I have said several times today, we are revamping and reorganizing the department and the programs. That is one of the principles which is included in the idea of greater autonomy and decentralization, for making judgments at the local level.


Mr. Stollery:: Mr. Chairman, I, too, will make my remarks very briefly. I know the minister would like to have a couple of minutes to wind up.
First of all, I would like to respond to the point which was brought up about the applications from Britain. Some hon. members may not be aware that Canada is a very difficult country to get into. We have a non-discriminatory immigration policy. This means it affects people from Britain just like it affects people from Portugal, China, South America and everywhere else. Because the policy is non-discriminatory it affects people from the United Kingdom and the United States just as it affects people from all around the world. We have a restricted immigration policy and I am personally happy that
it applies reasonably equitably to everyone from whatever area of the world they happen to come from. I think the minister and the department are to be complimented for taking this non-discriminating approach to our immigration policy.
I do a considerable amount of immigration work because of the constituency I represent. I would like to bring to the minister's attention one or two problems which have arisen recently in my constituency. The first is with respect to people who have been accepted for landing under the order in council procedures, usually spouses of landed immigrants or Canadian citizens. This difficulty has continued, but it started when the Conservative party was in government. It is the question of immigrants accepted for landing not receiving a work permit, which they should receive. In this case a person has been accepted by the system. He or she is a spouse, and has married a Canadian citizen for one reason or another. We are keeping them for up to nine months or a year in a kind of limbo where they are told that if they can get a job then they can have a work permit. But they go to employers and the employers say that if they do not have a work permit they cannot be given a job. I think this is something which should be looked into. I am convinced it is because the message has not gotten around that this kind of red tape is something we do not bother with.
My second question is with respect to Hong Kong where we have a real problem with local staff just processing all of the paperwork. I wish to compliment the tremendous work done by the immigration officers in these places. These immigration officers handle the applications of thousands of refugees plus all the normal immigration cases. They must also handle the immigration cases from the People's Republic of China, which pose a special problem.
They cannot do any more. What is needed is local staff to help the paper work. It is very important that we get this backlog cleared up. So the two points are with regard to (1) People being accepted through an order in council but not receiving their work permits and having to see members of parliament unnecessarily or hang around the immigration department and, (2) the employment of local staff, particularly in light of the pressure under which these men and women have worked with the Indo-Chinese immigration movement plus the normal immigration flow.
The third question is of a political nature, and I am still not clear if a process has evolved. It is the question of family businesses about which we all hear about from time to time, the particular difficulty faced by people who cannot meet the occupational demand requirements but who are required to help in a family business. I am sure members of Parliament on both sides of this House have faced this problem. I will not take any more time. I have dealt with a number of immigration cases under four or five ministers of employment and immigration and I can compliment the current Minister of Employment and Immigration on the immigration department. Under difficult circumstances, I think he has handled the department very well in this last little while.
December 8, 1980


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the hon. member for Spadina as well as I can. I think I have about three minutes left in my voice so I will eke out the last words. His question of landing permits sounds like a "Catch 22" problem which sometimes arises. 1 would ask the hon. member to speak to me privately, to outline the details. There should be no reason for such a delay. If there is a reason, we will find it out and if it is some quirk in the procedures, then the task force can straighten it out.
On the question of additional staff for our offices overseas, the hon. member knows that there has been an integration of the foreign service, External Affairs and Trade and Commerce. But the decisions on local staff lie with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I would certainly be glad to carry the hon. member's representations to him.
On the question of family businesses, a directive was issued in September, modifying the requirements of family business applications. Where there are positions of trust, then the normal regulations should be waived. These directives have gone out to all the offices and posts and should be in effect. It may take a while for the momentum and the routine to change, but all our immigration offices should not have this directive which should provide for a greater ease of movement in that particular class. I will gladly send a copy of those directives to the hon. member.
In the two minutes that are left I will simply say that after the 15 hours of estimates I feel the same as I did the first time I entered a marathon race. Once I got into it, I realized I would not win but that I had to finish!
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am about finished.
1 would like to thank the officials from my staff and from the department who have stood by me all this time. We in this House are sometimes guilty of making disparaging remarks about the Public Service of Canada. For sheer effort and assistance the officials of the department and my staff are owed my gratitude. They have been a great help to me during this time.
I would also like to thank members of the committee on both sides. This has been a good experience-not one that I should like to repeat soon, of course. Their questions and comments have been very helpful to me in the operation of this department and I am sure that I will be the one to benefit most from this experience. I hope we have been able to supply the answers that will enable members to better understand the workings of what I consider to be a very important department of government, one that deals with people. I would never say that we always make the right judgments but we try to make good judgments. That is the standard I use.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being midnight, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock today.
At 12.02 a.m. the House adjourned without question put pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Tuesday, December 9, 1980