1980-06-11

Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of recent statements by the chairman of the CRTC, confirmed by the Minister of Communications, that the government will prosecute certain organizations and individuals for distributing television signals received from satellites, but that other groups need not be concerned about prosecution, and since this obvious double standard allows some Canadians the right to choose freely what they watch on television while denying that freedom to others, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the government be directed to prepare amendments to the Canadian Broadcasting Act which recognize the global realities of modern communications technology and which will eliminate the present double standard by extending equal rights and privileges to television viewers in all parts of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the arrest and detention overnight in South Africa last month of the Reverend Tom Anthony of the Anglican Church of Canada, and in view of the arrest, detention and trial in Taiwan of Dr. C. M. Kao, general secretary of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, and other church leaders,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand):
That this House express its concern at the violation of human rights in Taiwan and South Africa, condemn the oppressive system of apartheid in South Africa with all its abuses of human dignity, and express its hope for the fair treatment and release of Dr. Kao and the other church leaders in Taiwan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion relating to an important and urgent matter.

In view of the fact that recent events have made it more necessary than ever that members of Parliament be able to deliver services in both languages from their offices to Canadians, I move, seconded by the Conservative House leader, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and, I hope, supported by members of the Liberal caucus:
That this House urges the committee on members' services to give positive consideration to making the language training presently available to members of Parliament available to the employees of members of Parliament.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of this House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 11, 1980
[English]	AIR CANADA


FISHERIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that Prince Edward Island is fast becoming the tuna capital of the world, and because many of the tuna charter boat operators are now being flooded with inquiries from all over the world that they cannot answer because they do not know when the tuna season opens, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House instruct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to immediately announce when the tyna season will be opened so that tuna charter boat operators will be able to accept reservations with some certainty.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR FARES FOR DISABLED PERSONS AND THEIR ATTENDANTS- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that disabled persons confined to stretchers requiring the use of two aircraft seats are forced to pay double fare, plus an attendant's fare, when travelling by Air Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley):
That this House approves the principle that Air Canada tickets should be sold on the basis of one ticket for one person, and not on the number of seats necessary to transport that person and, where an attendant is warranted, the attendant should travel free or at a substantially reduced rate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the federal government's Energy Supplies Allocation Board has recommended the removal of agriculture and, apparently, the essential transportation and processing requirements associated with the production of food from the high priority list it has held, whereas every Canadian and thousands of human beings in other parts of the world depend upon our food and animal production for survival, and whereas agriculture should never be relegated to a secondary position in any list of essential commodities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House urge the government to place agriculture at the top of the high priorities' list.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CRIMINAL CODE


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since prostitution has reached crisis proportions in Vancouver's west end, degrading the quality of life for residents and encouraging many juveniles to believe that prostitution is a trendy activity, and since the courts have historically ruled that prostitution is a federal concern rather than a municipal one, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Minister of Justice immediately instruct his officials to amend the Criminal Code to give local police the authority to deal fairly and firmly with the problem of prostitution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 11, 1980



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government has done nothing to substantially lower the volume of acid rain falling every day in Canada, and in view of this inability to protect the environment from certain death, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House unanimously support a motion to reduce acid rain produced in Canada to a level where it does not endanger lakes, rivers, forests and agriculture; and that this House endorse the reduction of American acid rain by calling for the education of U.S. tourists through placement of billboards and leaflets at every border crossing, in co-ordination with advertising on major American networks the horrible impact that American pollution is having upon our environment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



METRIC CONVERSION

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR TABLING OF METRIC OVERVIEW BOARD REPORT- '	MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and given the urgent and pressing interest on both sides of this House of Commons in the still unreleased report of the metric overview board, which thoroughly documents the state of metric conversion in Canada and Canadians' feelings on this subject, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this House give unanimous consent to have the metric overview board report, much of the content of which has been extensively quoted in recent debates in the chamber, tabled for the benefit of the House of Commons and the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
5.0. 43



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan areas have been waiting many years for jet air service. The main runway at the Brandon airport was lengthened and strengthened in the sixties and a new terminal built in the seventies in anticipation of this service. Now that PWA has applied to provide this service, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) stated in a speech in Winnipeg on May 28 that improvement of transportation in western Canada was one of his top priorities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):	.
That the Minister of Transport use his good offices in urging an early decision by the Air Transport Committee on the PWA application to provide east and west jet service to the 180,000 people living in western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



WILDLIFE


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Since the Canadian government is currently increasing the quota of polar bears that can be killed for sport by hunters, considering that Canada is the only country that still allows sport hunting of this potentially endangered species, and because the Soviet Union and Norway have banned hunting of these animals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this government show compassion and concern in protecting these animals, because of their small numbers and the important symbolic role they play in representing Canada's north, and immediately introduce legislation to ban sport hunting of polar bears in Canada's north.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
1982

June 11, 1980
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question in his responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am sure the minister is aware of the severe drop in price received by farmers since the embargo placed on shipments to the U.S.S.R. by the previous government, and continued by this government, because of the unconscionable attack by the U.S.S.R. on Afghanistan. Can the minister explain to me, other members of this House and the farmers of western Canada the plans he has to compensate them for this loss of income?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am quite aware of the fact that following the U.S.S.R. aggression in Afghanistan, the Canadian government at the time took action to restrain Canadian exports. With respect to the degree of compensation that this might justify, which is an acceptable principle inasmuch as reduction in export and price can be directly related to the restraint of export to the Soviet Union, this is constantly being assessed by the government.
It is too early now, because there is still a month and a half to go before the end of the season, to find out exactly what the effect of the government's action has been. However, as I said, this is constantly being monitored. There will be a cabinet paper in a few weeks, at the end of the grain season.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: In light of the minister's acceptance of the principle of compensating farmers in western Canada, and in light of his policy and the policy of the previous government to monitor continually the change in price, I am sure the minister realizes that since January the farmers of western Canada have suffered a reduction of approximately 75 cents per bushel for their grain. Can the minister tell me how many reports he, his assistant in the other place, or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have received to date?


Jean-Luc Pepin: On what, may I ask?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the minister a statement made on January 9 by his assistant in the other place, who said that farmers must be compensated for their loss of income and a monitoring policy must be set up to arrive at that figure.
Can the minister tell me, the members of this House and the farmers of western Canada whether anyone has monitored this situation? Has his department, or the Department of Agriculture, monitored it? If they have not monitored it, why have they not answered questions put to them, in light of the 75-cent reduction per bushel of grain for farmers of western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the monitoring system is obviously a collective action. This is done through the grains group, which is a unit that belongs to Agriculture, Transport, and Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is being done there. Before coming to a conclusion, obviously all the facts must be put together. As I said a moment ago, it is too early now, because sales may be made to countries other than the U.S.S.R. in the coming month and a half, to come to that conclusion.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister on the same topic. The fact is that prices have dropped approximately 75 cents a bushel since January 4, when the embargo was put in place. That is a fact; it does not need to be monitored.
In these circumstances, why was the Canadian Wheat Board not represented at a meeting in Brussels on May 19 to discuss the subject, among many others, of the embargo which was placed on shipments of grain following the invasion of Afghanistan? Seventy-five cents a bushel has been lost. Is this not a sufficient basis upon which the government could go ahead with a policy of ensuring that the farmers of western Canada do not carry the full price-tag for Canada's foreign policy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This decision was made by the previous government and it is supported by the present government; there is no doubt about that. Obviously, the previous government knew that the decision made last January would have certain effects on volumes and on prices. That is why they put forward the idea of compensation.


Mr. Clark:: What about Brussels?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you very much. I will deal with these points one after another. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his advice. On this subject, there was a meeting of exporters in Brussels in May and the Canadian government was represented there by the head of the Grains Group, which is not abnormal in these instances.


Charles James Mayer: I am concerned because the Canadian Wheat Board should have been at that meeting in Brussels, not necessarily a government official. Perhaps I should turn to the Minister of Agriculture, since the responses we have had from the Minister of Transport in relation to his responsibilities in this House on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board have been totally inadequate.
In the light of a Statistics Canada report today showing that farm income fell drastically in the month of April, can the hon. gentleman take it upon himself to see that this 75 cents a bushel which has been lost by western grain producers will be forthcoming to them, in line with the policy now adhered to as a result of the statement by the Minister of Transport?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I, too, am waiting for the paper to which the Minister of Transport referred.
June 11, 1980


AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO BE PAID
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the commitment he has made to the Canadian grain growers that they will be compensated for losses due to the embargo, and since the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has estimated these losses at 700.000 tonnes, and bearing in mind that the pre-embargo price was $233 a tonne, is the Prime Minister prepared to give the House the assurance that 100 per cent compensation will be made to the farmer, involving an amount of approximately $163 million?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: It would seem that this question is directly linked to the answers given by the minister who replied to the earlier questions. We shall have to wait to see what the facts are, what has caused lower prices, and what the volume is, before reaching a final conclusion as to amounts.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: A further question to the Prime Minister. In the last few days, the ministry of fitness and amateur sport has indicated it would give $1.5 million to assist Olympic athletes. In order to establish some kind of fairness, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he will get from the cabinet a commitment that the farmer will not be the only person to carry the ball for the foreign policy of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 am not sure I see the connection between the two questions. The government has had an ongoing policy of assisting athletes in Canada, particularly in the area of amateur sports. Of course, we will continue to do that no matter what happens in Moscow. In the same way, we have assisted western grain farmers in many ways over the years and we will continue to do so.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I have a further question for the Prime Minister. I have here an article which states-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member just ask his question very simply.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The minister has stated that $1.5 million was given due to the inability of those people to go to Moscow. On the basis of that, would the Prime Minister give us some indication of whether he agrees that in fairness we should give the same kind of assistance to farmers?


An hon. Member:: Why should he sell their wheat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the commitment is there to both groups. As the minister pointed out, we are waiting to ascertain the facts before determining quantum.
Oral Questions


EMBARGO ON GRAIN SHIPMENTS TO U.S.S.R.-INTENTIONS FOR NEXT CROP YEAR
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Transport who answers for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. There is one other dimension to this whole question that has not yet been raised today; that is, the whole question of whether Canada is prepared to continue the embargo that we entered into at the first of the year.
The minister may know there is concern at the present time by farm groups in western Canada that maybe they have not been treated as fairly as they could have been. With excess capacity developing in the transportation system, if we do continue the embargo into the next crop year we could, in effect, find ourselves out of sales we might have been able to make if we had not followed this line. Has the government given any consideration to what it intends to do after the end of this crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Very much, Madam Speaker, because obviously we have to decide now if we are going to continue the restraint action in the next crop year. Nobody likes the restraint situation we are in now; everybody would love to sell a lot more. But the decision of January last was made because of political circumstances; that is, the invasion of Afghanistan.
Obviously, the great eagerness of everybody related to this industry to export more and more, to the Soviet Union in particular, must be assessed in the light of political events that took place originally to justify the restraint period. That is going on now in the cabinet, and before the end of the crop year, presumably, a decision will be made as to whether the restraint period should continue.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, is the minister saying to the House that the government, through the cabinet, is not prepared to, or will not make any changes in policy when the new crop year arrives after July 31? Is the decision to continue well into 1980, and possibly 1981?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the restraint period was for the duration of this crop year. As we will be confronted with a new crop year on August 1, presumably a decision will have to be made on whether the restraint period should continue into the new crop year: it is elementary.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHAIRMAN OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF HOUSE OF KEYS, ISLE OF MAN
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to note the presence in our gallery of Mr. Edward Clifford Irving, Chairman of the Executive Council of the House of

June 11, 1980
Oral Questions
Keys, who is visiting us with a delegation of parliamentarians from the Isle of Man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PREMIER OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
[Stage Direction]
earlier in the question period today about priorities being considered by the allocation board under that act, would the minister take the opportunity this week or next, by way of either a statement on motions or the tabling of documents, to indicate to the House succinctly and clearly the principles and guidelines which govern the board members' deliberations in determining the priority of energy allocation supplies?
Madam Speaker:: I ask all hon. members also to note the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Angus MacLean, a former member of this House, whom I am very glad to welcome, and Premier of Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OPEC DISCUSSIONS-AVAILABILITY OF FOREIGN OIL
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the OPEC talks of this week, reports of which are somewhat confusing; but it does appear clear that there will be a cutback in production this year by OPEC countries.
Given the unhappy fact that Canadians, particularly those in eastern Canada, will be even more reliant this year on foreign oil, is the minister able to inform the House whether the OPEC cutbacks in production will adversely affect the availability of foreign oil upon which that part of the country is so reliant?


Mr. Lalonde:: Madam Speaker, I have heard representations about the priorities accorded to various sectors by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. I want again to remind the House and the country that the government has not yet received those recommendations from the board. They are, at best, the conclusions of that board and those conclusions have been finally reached. I understand that the draft regulations are still not completed. Before being approved by the government, they would first have to be received and then we will certainly give them very, very careful consideration. I want to reassure- particularly the farming sector-that if the reports we have are to the effect that agriculture would be given a lower than first or top priority, it would be definitely a matter that this government would want to consider very carefully, bearing in mind the great importance of the farming sector to the whole Canadian economy.
* *
*


INDUSTRY
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I noted the comments of the hon. member at the beginning of his question when he said that the reports appear to be rather confusing. I would suggest that we wait for formal communication of the official conclusions of this session to find out what the real conclusions of the meetings have been. As the hon. member knows, there are various reports coming from various countries, and it is rather hard to assess whether there has been any agreement or anything of substance so far as prices or supply are concerned.
So far as supply is concerned, I again remind the House that we have in this country not only a one-price policy, but also a policy of ensuring supply to all parts of Canada. Our policy is to the effect that no area of this country, whether it be Atlantic Canada or anywhere else, would be put at a disadvantage as compared to any other part of this country, whether in terms of price or in terms of supply.


William Herbert Jarvis: I appreciate the minister's comments about supply, because I was going to ask him the following question in any event. Given the probability of cutbacks on the one hand and, on the other hand, increased Canadian consumption and reliance on foreign oil-both of which factors would operate to trigger the provisions of the Energy Supplies Emergency Act-and given the speculation which was evidenced


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the massive lay-offs which have occurred in the steel industry. Could the minister tell the House, since my colleague from Churchill asked him questions on this issue on May 12, whether he has had the opportunity to contact again the executives of the Canadian steel industry about the fact that 45 per cent of the iron ore comes from the United States and not from Canadian mines?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, through my officers I have contacted the executives of these companies. We are trying to set up a meeting with them in which I will personally take part with the support of the Minister of State for Mines, and 1 will try to find a solution to what is a crucial problem for the workers in this important sector.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Given the fact that there is talk of not only lay-offs in Quebec but also of closing four iron mines in northern Ontario, could the minister tell the House whether the policy of the Government of Canada should not be to make the Canadian steel industry use Canadian
June 11, 1980

instead of American resources, especially now when unemployment in the Canadian industry is so high?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the government's policy is still to make use of our natural resources in this country. We received the support of a majority of Canadians for this specific reason, namely, our commitments concerning that important national policy.
*
* *


OIL-APPLICABILITY OF BLENDED PRICE TO EASTERN CANADA
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my questions are supplementary to those put by my colleague, the hon. member for Perth, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. While there might be confusing reports coming out of the OPEC meeting-we might all agree on that-we would also agree that there is one certainty, that is, that the price of oil will not go down, regardless of any confusion in the reports and in today's papers. Since that is pretty well the consensus, I should like to ask the minister this question as he searches for a blended price like the knights of old searched for the Holy Grail.
The minister tells Atlantic producers and consumers that there will be no oil import subsidy. Can he tell the House that, with his blended price, the consumer in eastern Canada would not have to bear by himself or herself the increases that are bound to come out of any OPEC meeting; or will the government get away from the noxious notion of a blended price which would unfairly discriminate against all of us who live in eastern Canada?
Oral Questions
could very well be double those they pay today? Can we be reassured that the oil import subsidy, regardless of anything else the minister does with the blended price, will continue so far as consumers in Atlantic Canada are concerned?


Marc Lalonde: Again I think the hon. member is confusing many issues in this question. What is clear is that there will be a single price for oil in this country. We will continue this policy, and the people in Atlantic Canada will not be put at a disadvantage compared to people in the rest of Canada. Now the hon. member wants to go further, and asks whether there will be some kind of special support for the people of Atlantic Canada-for instance, with regard to oil-generated electricity.
I have already indicated to my provincial colleagues that I have this question very much in mind. In the discussions that I am having with the producing provinces, I hope to arrive at a resolution where the federal government will end up with sufficient funds to take care of situations like this. I have indicated that to my provincial colleagues.


COST OF ELECTRICITY IN EASTERN CANADA
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If we understood him correctly, he will not mind rising in his place and giving Atlantic Canadians the assurance that the cost of domestic electricity in that part of this country will not get any further out of line than it is today.


Marc Lalonde: Out of line with what, Madam Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member gives me the opportunity once more to clarify the misunderstanding that might still exist in his mind on this particular issue. This allows me to reassure the people in Atlantic Canada, as 1 am sure he will when he realizes it, that under any arrangement at which we arrive we will continue in this country our one-price policy for oil.
It is a complete misreading and a complete misinterpretation of the facts to pretend that the people in Atlantic Canada will be in any way, shape or form discriminated against as compared with people in the rest of Canada. People in Atlantic Canada will receive from this government exactly the same fair treatment that all Canadian consumers will receive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, are we to understand then from the minister's reply that a blended price, if it ever comes, will not bash those in Atlantic Canada, primarily those from the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia who need oil for electrical generation? Unless there is an oil import subsidy, the electrical rates of people in those two provinces


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I find it appalling that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not aware-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


FINANCE
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Finance. Is the minister aware of the fact that under previous legislation the chartered banks of Canada contribute an amount to the general revenue of Canada equivalent to the cost of operating the office of the inspector general of banks, and that this situation creates at least a potential-


Some hon. Members:: Question.

June 11, 1980
Oral Questions


Paul Edmund McRae: 1 have already asked the question.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Edmund McRae: I have asked my question.


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member ask his question now.


Paul Edmund McRae: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister if he is aware of this. Also, is he prepared to introduce amendments to prevent this potential conflict of interest?


An hon. Member:: Did you go to caucus this morning? [Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, of course I am aware of that situation. The hon. member must know, as all his colleagues do, the great objectivity of the inspector general of banks and the interest he has always demonstrated for all Canadians. This situation raises no problem at all as far as I am concerned.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. When permission was first granted to lower fuel reserves required by Air Canada and CP Air in the early 1970s, it was specifically intended to be on a trip basis, taking into consideration en route weather, terminal weather, runways, etc.
Will the minister indicate whether his department in fact has approved blanket safety reductions in the past few years, and will he ensure that those original safeguards are being enforced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, do these safeguards concern the carrying of fuel in airplanes?


John Raymond Ellis: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If that is the question, indeed there is a situation in which Air Canada and CP Air are privileged in the sense that they have to carry only 30 minutes more fuel than the fuel needed to go from the point of departure to the point of arrival, as opposed to other companies which have to carry enough fuel to fly from the point of arrival to a subsidiary point. So there is a difference. The situation was justified until now.


Mr. Crosbie:: There is no fuel like an old fuel.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The department is now conducting an inquiry among air controllers to find out how many instances there have been of the kind reported in the papers a day or two ago. So the department is going to find out if this is a recurring event; and, if so, they will act accordingly.


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, 1 have a brief supplementary question. 1 would not advocate that the 30-minute reserve be taken away from Air Canada and CP Air but, rather, that it be enforced.


John Carnell Crosbie: Increased.


John Raymond Ellis: It should be left in such a way that there is no question in anyone's mind that they are perhaps shaving those 30 minutes. Since it is so important, would the minister perhaps in the very near future make a statement on motions concerning the enforcement of this 30-minute reserve?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker. But I said at the end of my answer that this is exactly what will be done. The officials will find out to what extent the regulation is being observed, and how many instances of the same situation have taken place, that is, when an airplane, because of a limited fuel reserve, had to get priority status to land at a certain airport. This will be reported and I will make a little sign to my friend when I have the report so that he can ask me another intelligent question as he has today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister the reason for his visit to certain European countries following the Venice Summit. I think his visits to the Vatican and England are self-explanatory, but I refer specifically to his visits to Sweden and Norway.
Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to discuss with Scandinavian leaders the north-south international development question, particularly the report of the Brandt commission, which indicated specifically that the future of mankind is hanging upon resolution of the international development question, and the principal recommendation in the report of the Brandt commission that there be a world summit of north-south leaders of about 25 in number?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I expect that subject will be among those discussed with the prime ministers of Sweden and Norway. Of course, there will be many other reasons for the visit. In the case of Norway, we will be discussing certain subjects relating to NATO. In the case of Sweden, I will be returning an official visit made here by the Swedish prime minister some years ago.


An hon. Member:: To discuss neutrality.
June 11, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member said, in the cases of London and Rome, in a sense the visits speak for themselves.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, in his discussions with the world leaders whom the Prime Minister will be seeing, will he discuss the four emergency provisions set out in the report of the Brandt commission dealing with resource transfers, an international energy strategy, expanded food production, and a broadening of international financial institutions?
Will those four emergency provisions set out by the Brandt commission form the basis of the Canadian position to be taken and advanced at the special session of the United Nations on development to be held in August?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his interest in this matter. I can assure him that it is shared by the government. Apart from the occasion of the summit in Venice where the north-south subject will be very high on the agenda, and the other bilateral visits 1 mentioned,
I would inform the member-because of his interest-that there have been other approaches made relative to the Brandt commission. For instance, the subject was discussed at some length, first in correspondance and then in the bilateral meeting we had with the President of Mexico.
We have been looking at the proposal of the Brandt commission for a mini-summit and possible dates in Venice for that summit. Canada has been asked to indicate tentatively if it would be prepared to participate. The government is very interested in this subject. Either the foreign minister or myself would welcome any occasion to exchange ideas with the hon. member or any other member of the House who would wish to do so.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF EDUCATION
Madam Speaker:: 1 ask hon. members to join with me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the Minister of Education for the province of British Columbia, Mr. Brian Smith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development. Last week, the former Ontario ombudsman and a former Conservative member of this House, the Hon. Arthur Maloney, raised a question about the penalty that
Oral Questions
is imposed upon, particularly, young people for illegal importation of marijuana into this country-a minimum sentence of seven years.
1 am wondering if the minister is considering looking at this particular section-not with regard to hard drugs, of course, but with regard to marijuana-to determine if the penalty might be left to the discretion of the courts.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, we are looking into the matter at this time. We indicated in the Speech from the Throne that we would be making some changes in this area. I hope to do so in a few weeks from now.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker,
I address my question to the Minister of Transport. It is with regard to the announced intention of Canadian National Railways to abandon about 55 miles of track in the Oxford subdivision of Nova Scotia. The minister will recall that I wrote him on this matter on May 26, outlining the adverse economic effects of this proposed abandonment.
Will the minister now say for the record that he supports the retention of this Canadian National Railways' line system, without prejudice necessarily to whatever the CTC hearings may disclose?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if I were to do as the hon. member suggests, one would be questioning the usefulness of the CTC.


John Carnell Crosbie: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It seems to me that the CTC is there to investigate such situations and make decisions thereon. Then, under sections 25 and 64 of the transportation act, the minister or the government can change these decisions or leave them alone.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, does the minister not perceive that this is symptomatic of the mindless support that the succession of Liberal transport ministers have given to the CN, which has allowed these railways to deteriorate to the point where, for example, the line to which I have referred can only be used in some sections by trains travelling at five miles per hour?
Will the minister not use the authority of his office, without prejudice to the CTC, to investigate this matter to determine what can be done under these conditions and under conditions on other railway lines which have been allowed to deteriorate to this deplorable state?

June 11, 1980
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it is a question of different points of view. Mine is that this support is indicative of the respect this government has for regulatory institutions in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: You certainly do!


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State having to do with the freedom of information legislation which was mentioned prominently in the Speech from the Throne.
Would the Secretary of State report on the progress of that legislation which is within his responsibility, where it stands at the moment, and whether we are likely to have introduced in the House, at least before the summer adjournement, a freedom of information bill?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. gentleman and inform him that we have taken a very hard look at the bill which he introduced when he was the government House leader. We have had an opportunity to examine many letters of criticism-I do not mean that necessarily in a negative sense-which were brought to my attention following the tabling of that bill by the hon. member.
I have also had the opportunity to review many of the comments made by provincial governments. I have requested the provincial governments to forward to me any other comments they wish to bring to my attention before we finalize the bill. In the meantime, I expect to place a position paper before my colleagues within a week or so.


Walter David Baker: I do not want to ask the minister to tell tales out of school, but could he inform the House whether he or the government have settled upon whether in principle the government supports the position of an independent judicial review? Could the minister indicate to the House today whether that is the case? It would make me completely happy if he were to answer in the positive.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should get back to an initial statement and recall to the hon. member that the government made a commitment to introduce freedom of information legislation in the Speech from the Throne. We intend to introduce that legislation before the adjournment of this session if at all possible. We are, indeed, committed to the notion or concept of an independent review of decisions made concerning access to information.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the member responding for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It has to do with the west coast fishery.
In view of the early closing of the Fraser River this year, which has meant that the Fraser gillnetters have had only six fishing Mondays, compared to 17 last year, and that there is great hardship resulting from this situation, could the minister tell us whether the requested two subsequent Monday openings have been considered by the Department of Fisheries, and whether they are ready to make a response to this request?
I do not think it is fair that the gillnet fishermen should be required to bear the brunt of the conservation measures. I believe the sport fishery and the trawl fishery should also share that burden.


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the reason the fishery was closed in the first place is that we wanted as much as possible to conserve the salmons stocks of British Columbia. I am not aware of such a request being made to the minister. I will bring the hon. member's question to his attention and have an answer for the hon. member as soon as possible.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, there is a certain urgency about this matter because there is the possibility that the outrage and anger resulting from this hardship may cause some fishermen to defy the law.
Would the parliamentary secretary also convey to the minister the need for some kind of compensation for these fishermen who are facing such great economic hardship, along the lines of the Atlantic salmon compensation which was offered to the Atlantic salmon fishermen? It is very foolish for the government to expect one small fishery to bear the brunt of the economic hardship and the responsibility for conservation, when the government has done very little about habitat destruction and overfishing often by foreign fleets.


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, I will bring the question of the hon. member to the minister's attention.


NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO ATLANTIC COAST-IMPORTANCE TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the confusion arising out of the meeting of the OPEC oil ministers, and the uncertainty which it raises in the minds of eastern Canadians, would the minister take this opportunity to impress upon the premier and government of New Brunswick the
June 11, 1980

necessity of proceeding with a gas pipeline to the Atlantic coast and try to overcome their objections, which may be less with regard to the environment than with their mismanagement of the Pointe Lepreau nuclear project?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 take note of the representations made by the hon. member. I would like to point out to him that the extension of the gas pipeline to the Atlantic coast is a matter which the government views with keen interest. As for the position of New Brunswick, I have already spoken with the minister of energy of that province and 1 hope 1 can discuss this question with him again in the near future. I want to assure my hon. colleague that his views will be brought to the attention of the government of New Brunswick.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A few days ago, the Prime Minister indicated that the minister would be conducting an internal inquiry with respect to Canada's nuclear policy. Would the minister table in the House of Commons at an early date the terms of reference of this inquiry?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister, we are now reviewing the nuclear policy of our country. I will be pleased to give further details on our review policies to the hon. member. But we did not set up any formal task force with specific terms of reference. If the hon. member wants to have further details, I will be pleased to give him some.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that the Prime Minister in his statement in the House made a commitment that there would be an opportunity for public input, could the minister enlighten the House as to the plans being made on how people can make representations to the department and obtain information with respect to this inquiry, so there will be no question that the people of Canada who are interested in this topic will be deprived of that right?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for his second question which is somewhat clearer. Surely there will be an opportunity for public input. A number
Oral Questions
of documents are now being drafted. They should be made public as soon as they are completed. They deal with a series of nuclear industry-related issues. When they are made public, I think interest groups will be able to make representations. The best forum will have to be set up to make possible truly well structured and organized exchanges between the government and the people who are very much interested in the topic.


LOTTERIES
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. A little over two months ago, his colleague the minister responsible for amateur sports indicated the government's intention to reconsider the possibility of lotteries. The Prime Minister already confirmed this intention when he replied to a question. In view of the good will which the Prime Minister has demonstrated recently toward a serious reassessment or division of powers with the provinces, and in view of the fact that the provinces have exercised this power for a year already, could the Prime Minister indicate to the house today whether he has abandoned his plan to recuperate this lottery?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister, I could not say anything more to the hon. member. I know that the minister meant to seek the advice of a number of provincial ministers concerning this, but I have not yet been made aware of his findings.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER HAS SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that it has even been stated in Quebec City that a decision of the federal government could be considered as a breach of contract, has the Prime Minister considered getting a legal opinion or asked the Minister of Justice to obtain such expertise, if not will he do so and will he make it public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the minister has effectively asked that such a review be made. I would only remind the member for Joliette that a contract had been signed between Mrs. Campagnolo, the then minister responsible for lotteries, and the ten provinces. That contract was amended. Will the ministers also agree to change this one?

Privilege-Mr. McKenzie


FINANCE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. We remember that infamous day in April, when the Minister of Finance tabled a document which we on this side declared to be a budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: The Prime Minister has walked out, Madam Speaker, while I am directing a question to him. 1 wonder if someone on that side of the House would answer this question. Is the Prime Minister, or whoever will answer in his place, aware of a symposium being held in Ottawa this week entitled "A Review of the Spring, 1980, Budget" which will be addressed by three highly-placed government tax officials and the minister's parliamentary secretary? The appearance of these august persons gives further credence to our belief that the April document was, indeed, a budget.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: It is past three o'clock.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: In light of these facts my question is, will the Prime Minister allow the House to have the budget debate which has been so long denied and delayed?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, 1 think that the hon. member has made many assumptions to draw a conclusion which has long since proved to be false. The speech made by the Minister of Finance during the throne speech debate allowed him to table a ways and means motion providing for the disposal of various measures which had been on the table for a long time but had nothing to do with a budget speech.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
mr. McKenzie-engine failures on air Canada

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I have a question of privilege regarding the answers that the Minister of Transport provided to the House yesterday to my questions about the 747 Air Canada aircraft that experienced engine failure last Saturday. From all news reports and all the information I have received, it appears that three engines failed and not two, as the minister stated yesterday. I wonder if the Minister of Transport could clarify that for the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the mistake is mine. I made it because of something I had heard to the effect that it was two engines. I apologize: it was three engines.


POINT OF ORDER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises from the motion under Standing Order 43 which I presented to the House today. I hesitate to raise it because I do trust Your Honour's judgment on this but I have had a chance to check with a number of members on both sides of the House and I have not been able to discern whether somebody actually did say no to that motion. 1 am speaking of the motion under Standing Order 43 which referred to extending language training to employees as well as members of the House. I wonder if Your Honour would consider putting the question again because a number of us have been unable to discover who said no.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may want to bring back his motion under Standing Order 43 on another day, but it was clear to me today that someone in this House shouted no. Therefore, I knew that could not have the unanimous consent of the House to put the motion.


PRIVILEGE
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few minutes ago we saw a display in this House by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I realize I am new in this House, having been here only one year, but I believe new members look up to and respect those members who have been here for a number of years, such as the right hon. Prime Minister. For the Prime Minister to walk out on any member when a question is being posed is to me the height of irresponsibility and arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Therefore, Madam Speaker, I want it recorded that I have raised this question of privilege. I believe that the right hon. Prime Minister should get back to me with a response and an apology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 11, 1980

[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am informed that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who usually answers exhaustively and politely to all questions put to him, had an urgent appointment. It was after three o'clock when the hon. member asked his question and the hon. member himself specified that his question was directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen). As the Minister of Finance was absent, he wanted to direct it to the Prime Minister. However, as the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) is here, he gave him a complete and exhaustive answer. I think that the hon. member is absolutely ill-advised to complain about the Prime Minister's attitude who, once again. Madam Speaker, had to leave the House because of a very important appointment he had at three o'clock, which means after the oral question period.


Charles Joseph Clark: On that question of privilege, Madam Speaker, it should be clear to the House of Commons and certainly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that it is Madam Speaker and not the Prime Minister or any other minister, no matter how full of self-importance he may be, who decides when this question period is over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The question period is not over until Madam Speaker decides it is over. That is a long-established practice in this House of Commons.
What my colleague the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) has outlined is that there has been a practice generally of courtesy and respect for the rights of private members of Parliament and particularly, perhaps, for the rights of members who have come relatively recently to this House.
The Prime Minister has often spoken of his desire to have this House function effectively. Madam Speaker, he is going to have to prove that desire by his actions. He does not prove a desire to have the House of Commons function effectively when he walks out on a member of Parliament who is posing a question to him which is important to that member of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: On the same question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I notice that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), not having risen on a question during this question period, has found this excuse to raise this red herring.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in the House from two o'clock to three o'clock, when he had an urgent appointment. The question was raised by a private
Privilege-Mr. McRae
member and it was answered by a minister of the Crown who has responsibility for the Department of Finance. Everything was done according to the rules and with full propriety. 1 submit that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are completely objectionable.


Madam Speaker:: Before I hear the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) on another question of privilege, I will rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) who, of course, knows that this is not a question of privilege but merely a grievance that he has expressed. He is entitled to have grievances about the manner in which questions are answered in this House, but the Chair has no authority, of course, to determine the quality of the answers or whether the question should be answered or not. The question was asked.
May 1 remind the member that no minister is obligated to answer a question if he does not feel that he wants to answer it. In this case, however, no one has been prevented from functioning, because an answer has been given to the member's question by someone who is responsible and entitled to answer questions on this particular subject. Perhaps the member is not satisfied with the answer, but that is an entirely different matter. He might not be happy about it, but, of course, that does not constitute a question of privilege.


MR. McRAE-RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Paul Edmund McRae: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with the rights of members on this side of the House to ask questions during question period. I was seen by you, Madam Speaker, and rose to ask a question. I got the impression from the noise that occurred that there was some question whether members on this side should be allowed to ask questions of the minister. 1 would like to deal with this point.
I feel that 1 have the same privileges as every other member to ask a question no matter whether I am on this side or on that side of the House. I make it a point of asking questions directly on which I have not primed the minister. In fact, the minister's answer was not one that 1 liked and I intend to pursue this particular matter further. But I got the distinct impression that this was the reason for the noise and it was very difficult for me to ask the question.
I also want to make it very plain that I distinctly said: "I want to ask the minister if he is aware of-''and that, in my opinion, is a question. I believe that once in a while some members on this side should stand up and say that we on this side have every right to ask questions in the same way as members opposite.


Madam Speaker:: I do not disagree with the hon. member. He does have a right, and that right was recognized today. The hon. member did have a chance to ask a question today. However, 1 did call the House to order when some of the

June 11, 1980
Petitions
members were a bit noisy in order to give the hon. member a chance to ask his question and be heard by the minister and by other members. Therefore, I do not feel that his privileges have in any way been breached.
I cannot hear the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on that same question of privilege because I have already ruled on it.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to point out that the very first question I asked in this House of Commons was asked on the second or third day of sitting. The preamble to the question was too long and the catcalls were very loud from the other side of the House.
I would like to tell the hon. gentleman who raised the last point that following my experience I discussed the matter with a parliamentarian who had been here a number of years. It was pointed out to me that my questions should be short and to the point, and that if they were I would not get catcalls. I follow that practice now and I have not had any catcalls since.


Madam Speaker:: I do agree with the hon. member that members from both sides of the House should be allowed to ask all of their questions and to have silence and the attention of the House while asking questions. When there is too much noise, 1 try to call order but it is impossible for me to remember whether the catcalls were more important on the third day of this session than they were today. I do not know if I have been absolutely fair in calling order now if I did not when the hon. member was subjected to catcalls. I try to judge the situation and play it by ear. I hope I did not prevent the member from asking a question on that day.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, you were eminently fair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines-Mr. de Corneille.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk Assistant of the House has laid upon the Table
the ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I too have the honour to present to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled a petition pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67, which in brief prays that the system of weights and measures known as the imperial system shall always be legal and acceptable in Canada regardless of any other system that may happen to be used.
The petition attached bears the signatures of 4,875 electors and was sent to me in my capacity as member of Parliament for Moose Jaw for transmittal to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. If the petition is found to be in order, Madam Speaker, I pray it will be referred to an appropriate committee of the House of Commons.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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. 43, 57, 194, 215, 282, 333,655, 656, 657,881 and 964.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the past 10 years, were objects of art purchased by the National Art Gallery subsequently found to be fraudulent, imitations, reproductions, etc. and, if so, in each case (a) what was the type of object and the date of purchase (b) what was its cost (c) who was the artist (d) who authorized and certified that the art was genuine?
2.	Was the cost of such objects recovered and, if so, what was the amount?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Museums as follows:
1.	To the best of its knowledge, the National Gallery of Canada has not acquired any objects of art during the past ten years which have subsequently been found to be fraudulent, imitations, reproductions etc.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: Were grants made by the Canada Council prior to May 22, 1979, termed publicly by certain persons as "peculiar" and, if so, does the government plan to (a) review criteria for Canada Council grants (b) make changes in the methods
June 11, 1980

of making such grants (c) introduce legislation or any other regulations requiring grants to be given on a different judgement basis?


Peter A. Stollery: The Canada Council has no record of the type of grants described in the question.
The Canada Council has been established by an act of Parliament in 1957 to promote and assist a very diversified arts community. The government does not intervene in the grant-making decisions of the council which relate to its specific mandate under the Canada Council Act.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for Air Canada?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1.	1977	1978
($ Millions)
(a)	Total revenues	1187.7	1322.6(b)	Net earnings	20.0	47.5
2. (a) Air Canada received no direct or indirect subsidies
or other benefits from the government in either year.
(b)	No new guarantees were provided by the government in either 1977 or 1978.
In 1977, $17 million in 8.1 per cent-8.8 per cent notes maturing in 1981 were provided to the airline related to the Winnipeg Line Maintenance Hangar contract.
(c)	Details of the government's investment in the airline during 1978 are best displayed in the company's 1978 annual report tabled in the House. This includes all pertinent aspects of the corporate recapitalization that occurred on April 13, 1978, under the provisions of the Air Canada Act 1977. References are notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements in that report.
There were no write-offs.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	During 1977 and 1978, by quarters, what were the rates of interest charged by the Federal Development Bank and what were the prime rates charged by the chartered banks?
2.	What was the loss record of the Federal Development Bank in each of the past five years?
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: In so far as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned:
1. A list of interest rates charged by the Federal Business Development Bank and the prime rate charged by the chartered banks for 1977 and 1978, by quarter, follows:
	Chartered Bank	FBDB Loans
	Prime	Over $50,000
March, 1977	8.75	11.50June, 1977	8.25	11.50September, 1977	8.25	11.50December, 1977	8.25	11.50March, 1978	8.75	11.50June, 1978	9.25	12.00September, 1978	10.25	12.00December, 1978	11.50	12.50March, 1979	12.00	13.00
2. There has been no loss in the fiscal years 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979.


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


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the National Library as follows:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1974-75	$342,070
1975-76	426,833
1976-77	338,410
1977-78	33,595
1978-79	1,913
1979-80	2,538


Mr. Herbert: Is it the government's intention to measure the opportunities for Canadians to learn English or French as their second official language and, if so, by what method?


Peter A. Stollery: It is currently the practice of the federal government to monitor the participation rates of elementary and secondary students in second official language learning and it is the government's intention to continue this procedure.
However, any type of measurement requiring provincial co-operation would, of course, be subject to federal-provincial agreement.
This question will be discussed with the provinces during the negotiation of new federal-provincial agreements on official languages in education commencing 1980-81.

Order Paper Questions CMHC-NEW BRUNSWICK


Mr. Howie: From January I. 1978, what amount was loaned by CMHC to organizations in New Brunswick for construction of senior citizens residences?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
Total CMHC Loans Approved to Provide Residences for Senior Citizens in New Brunswick, January, 1978-March, I980(i)
New Housing	Existing Housing
Loans	Units	$000	Loans	Units	$0004	40	985	3	24	613
(I)AII activity in 1978


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1978, to date, how many loans were made for senior citizens housing accommodation for projects in (a) Fredericton (b) York county (c) Sunbury county?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation as follows:
Total NHA Loans Approved for Senior Citizen Housing Accommodation in Selected Areas in New Brunswick, January, 1978-March, 1980
Areas	New Housing	
	Loans Units Hostel Beds	$000
Fredericton York countyd) Sunbury county	1	- 30 2	- 60	1,018 1,714
(lincludes Fredericton city.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1978 to date, what amount was loaned by CMHC in New Brunswick for the construction of homes to provide care for senior citizens?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
Total CMHC Loans Approved to Provide Care for Senior Citizens in New Brunswick, January, 1978-March, 19800*
New Housing	Existing Housing
Loans Hostel Beds $000	Loans Hostel Beds $000
2	100	2,234	-	-
*1 * All activity in 1978.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is it a requirement under the conflict of interest guidelines that cabinet ministers shall disclose personal gifts or other benefits of a value exceeding $200 which they receive from persons other than relatives or family members and, if so, since such a requirement came into effect how many gifts have been reported and, in each case (a) by whom (b) what was the value?
2.	What was the total value of all such gifts?
3.	Is there a requirement that the gifts be reported within 30 days of their receipt and, if so, has anyone failed to follow this requirement and, if so (a) who and on what date (b) what was involved?


David Michael Collenette: The conflict of interest guidelines for ministers, in effect since April 28, 1980, require that:
IV Gifts
"Ministers shall disclose in the public registry any personal gift or other benefit of a value exceeding $200 which they receive from any person not connected with them by blood relationship, marriage or adoption, together with the name and address of the donor. Official gifts and hospitality received from other governments and hospitality received from personal friends are not subject to this rule. All gifts or benefits exceeding $200 in value, other than official gifts or benefits, are to be declared to the ADRG within 30 days of their receipt for disclosure in the public registry."
The guidelines for ministers also require that:
V1U Administration
"-Ministers must complete all arrangements necessary to achieve full compliance within 120 days of appointment or of the coming into force of these guidelines. Within this time period, ministers must provide to the ADRG copies of duly executed trust instruments and public disclosures of previous activities, personal gifts or benefits and disclose-able assets, as required, and a public document in which they will indicate in summary for the arrangements they have made to comply with these guidelines. The public disclosures of previous activities, personal gifts or benefits and disclose-able assets and the summary of arrangements made by a minister will be open to examination by the general public in the public registry maintained by the ADRG."
Information about the disclosure of gifts and benefits by ministers may be sought from the public registry maintained by the assitant deputy registrar general at the Trafalgar Building, 4th Floor, 207 Queen Street, Ottawa, soon after the expiry of the 120 day compliance period referred to above.
June 11, 1980


Mr. Wenman: Is there an Interdepartmental Deputy Ministers' Committee on Emergency Planning and, if so (a) which departments are represented (b) how many times has the committee met over the past two years (c) how many deputy ministers have attended each meeting over the past two years and which departments did they represent?


David Michael Collenette: Yes.
(a)	The following departments are represented:
Privy Council Office
Communications
Environment
External Affairs
National Defence
National Health and Welfare
Public Works
Solicitor General
Supply and Services
Transport
Treasury Board
and other departments when matters of interest to them are being discussed.
(b)	Five times.
(c) (i) five - Communications Solicitor General National Defence Supply Public Works
(ii)	four - Agriculture
National Defence Public Works Supply
(iii)	one - National Defence
(iv)	two - Agriculture
National Defence
(v)	four - Privy Council Office
National Defence Solicitor General Justice


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No.
Order Paper Questions
587 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 587 be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Stewart: What is the number of persons employed by the Metric Commission and, in each case, what is his/her (a) name (b) salary (c) job designation (d) date of appointment?
Return tabled.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary will recall that I had asked him whether he would make inquiries of the Minister of Public Works with respect to question No. 785, which reads as follows:
Has the Department of Public Works, the NCC or any other department or agency made any agreement with the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton or any other local government in the national capital, to grant land or the right to use land for the extension of the Knoxdale-Hunt Club arterial road or any part thereof through lands owned or controlled or used by any government department or agency?
I have been checking the list with which the parliamentary secretary kindly supplies us in advance each day, but I have not seen the answer to that question. Would the parliamentary secretary tell me whether he has made that inquiry or whether he has any idea when that question might be answered?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I have made inquiries. However, I see that the minister would like to speak to this matter and perhaps he can give an answer right now. I am sorry, but 1 assumed that 1 had already given the answer to the hon. member because 1 was told the answer very quickly. In any event, the minister might like to comment.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have signed an answer which was very short. There is no agreement, and I am sure that should allay the hon. member's fears.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I just want to convey to the parliamentary secretary that I was not being critical of him when 1 put that question. Also, I am grateful for the minister's answer.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the reamining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 11, 1980
Motions for Papers


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you please call notices of motions Nos. 6 and 11 for the production of papers?
[ Text]
ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED-CANDU REACTORS Motion No. 6-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications between the government and senior officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited during the months of June, July, August and September, 1979, that pertain to the negotiation of the sales of Candu reactors either by AECL or by any private company acting with the authority or knowledge of AECL.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports that the pertinent correspondence exchanged between the government and AECL during the months of June, July, August and September, 1979, contained commercial information that could be detrimental if made public to future AECL contract negotiations with potential clients. Therefore, I should like to ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Herbert:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

TREASURY BOARD-SPECIAL INDEX FOR SENIOR CITIZENS Motion No. 11-Mr. Benjamin:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of report on a special index for senior citizens prepared by the Treasury Board.
[ Translation]


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, since the Treasury Board did not prepare any report on a special index for senior citizens, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), I move the motion. If it is being denied, I ask that it be transferred for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers also be reserved.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 9, consideration in committee of Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act-Mr. Axworthy-Mr. Blaker in the chair.
On clause 1-
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Monday, June 9, 1980, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration. I believe the hon. member for Calgary West had the floor.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Chairman, this is our third day of Committee of the Whole examination of this bill. I want once again to remind the House that I see no officials present. I also want again to remind the House that we have requested that the minister either be better briefed or show up in this committee with officials. It is our contention that the minister wastes the time of the committee because he does not have the answers to the reasonable questions which we on this side and those on his side are putting to him.
I wish to quote from Hansard for December 4, 1979, page 1995:
Our objection to this bill rests both on the substance of it and on the attitude of the government. They have not shown during the debate on this bill any co-operation and openness-
The quote is from the minister when he was sitting in opposition and debating our mortgage tax credit bill. I think it summarizes a great deal of the feeling that is building up on this side of the chamber. We have to look at that feeling in the context of the present situation.
Back in 1972-73, I remind the minister, the Liberal government was facing an unemployment situation of a little more than half a million people. In that context, in a public policy sense, for one program alone, the local initiatives program, a job creation program, they were willing to allocate 1 per cent of the budget funds available to the government. Here we are, eight years later with the worst unemployment situation that this country has ever faced, with a rapidly worsening employment situation, and we find the government proposing some ten days ago in this House an expenditure for job creation that is less than one quarter of 1 per cent of federal government expenditures.
June 11, 1980

It is in that context that it is not only the right of members of Parliament to be able to examine with the minister his proposed legislation, but it is clearly an obligation. When his government chooses to allocate to job creation so few funds, such a little amount of money, it is the obligation of those on this side to examine very carefully whether that money will be well spent.
It is in that context that I rise today and begin another series of questions. I wish to begin with the minister's statement this morning made to a women's group in this city. 1 quote from a press release:
They were restricted-
That refers to his government.
-to spending limits-
That is in the context of job creation.
-set by the former Progressive Conservative government and he is not willing to announce an expensive new deal until a full review of existing programs is complete some time next fall.
I begin by asking the minister how he comes to the conclusion that the decision that he and his cabinet makes as what to spend on job creation is a consequence of the spending limits established by the Conservative government. Can he tell us how he comes to that conclusion?


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is quite obvious, that the estimates of spending were established by the previous government. We were working within those spending estimates. What we did was shift the priority within those estimates to apply a different program, allocating them in terms of direct job creation as opposed to the employment tax credit.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I sat in this House in early April. I heard the Minister of Finance increase the federal budget to the tune of $2 billion. Can the minister tell us what portion of that $2 billion increase he got for job creation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is repeating the question he raised in question period yesterday. I pointed out to him in question period in repetition, which seems to be the only way to get the answer through, that in fact the increased expenditures were allocated to a number of job stimulation measures. He seems to be under the illusion that the only form of job creation was that announced last Monday. It has been repeated to him time and time again that in fact there is a wide variety of economic stimulation measures taking place in the government, that we believe in a mixed approach to job creation, particularly in terms of investing in long-term job creation. If the hon. member is prepared to look at the variety of decisions taken over the past three months, he will see exactly where those expenditures have been made.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, 1 think Hansard records-and the papers given to us by the Minister of Finance say the same thing-that the increased $2 billion expenditure was to go to the subsidy paid for the consumption of oil and to pay interest on the public debt. Is the minister disagreeing with that
Employment Tax Credit Act
statement by the Minister of Finance? Is he suggesting to the committee that from that $2 billion extra expenditure he got some of the money for his operations?


Lloyd Axworthy: Perhaps I might repeat what I said, Mr. Chairman. The budget account adds up to well over $60 billion. Within that sum a wide variety of initiatives are taken by the government to assist in economic stimulation and job investment from one end of the country to the other. The global budget is attached to a vast variety of purposes, as he will see if the hon. member would like to go through the estimates. I invite him to attend a variety of meetings which are held daily to examine the spending estimates of a number of departments. I am sure it would be a very useful exercise for him to attend those committee meetings and add up the large number of jobs which have been created as a consequence of government expenditure.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is the minister suggesting that paying a subsidy on oil imports or paying increased interest on the public debt creates jobs in this country? Is that the kind of economics he is giving us this afternoon?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I do not use the same kind of silly logic as does the hon. member. I am saying that within the budget of the Government of Canada a number of initiatives are taken to create jobs. If the hon. member wants to quarrel with the principle of providing one-price oil across Canada rather than require the maritimes to pay substantially higher prices, I suggest he should take that issue up with the caucus before he speaks publicly on it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I am very much concerned about the employment situation in the Atlantic region. One of the criticisms of this bill is that it does so little for areas of high unemployment in this country. I was in the House earlier during the question period today and heard the minister of energy propose that oil should be available at one price to all Canadians. On the surface that sounds very good, but it has an impact on job creation. Two provinces in this confederation, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, depend on electricity for much of the energy which their industries use. In those two provinces electricity is generated by oil. The consequence of one-price oil in Canada is that people in those two provinces will pay twice as much for electricity, whether they use it in their homes or in their businesses. A one-price policy would, in effect, make it much more difficult for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to attract industry. Is the minister saying he is prepared to go to the minister of energy and argue for a special subsidy for the generation of electrical power in those two provinces?


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member somehow has the habit of making an assertion, drawing a conclusion and then putting the words in my mouth. If he finds this an amusing exercise, I have no objection. But what he says ought not to be taken seriously as being in any way a statement of our policy. I simply respond that the reason there is one price is to make

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
sure there is some degree of unity across this country, that some degree of parity between the regions is maintained. The cost of doing so is what we pay for maintaining a degree of equality in Canada, and if the hon. member is not prepared to pay it he should have a serious discussion with his leader and his caucus, because he is certainly way out in right field.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is nice to be in the field instead of out of the field, Mr. Chairman. The principle of equality is an important one and the minister is demonstrating either a lack of capacity to listen or an unwillingness to respond. If we are to disperse jobs in this country, if there is to be equality of opportunity in the different regions, one of the most important parts of that industrial dispersion is the supply of energy and its price.
It was a Liberal government some 15 years ago, I believe, which provided incentives for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to switch from coal-fired electrical generation to oil-fired generation because it was cheaper to import oil than to use the domestic supply. The situation today is that imported oil costs more than double the cost of domestic, and the areas to which I have referred burn this oil for the purpose of generating electricity. When a one-price policy for oil is in effect, it will be the same for all Canadians who want to buy gasoline for their cars but it will not be the same for all Canadians in terms of heating their homes or running factories in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. In those provinces the price will be doubled. This will affect the ability of a region to attract employers.
Mr. Chairman, I want to move on now to the five basic issues we should keep foremost in mind when looking at employment programs of any kind. First, there is the question of timing. Will the measure which is introduced spend the money and create jobs at the right time? Second, is this the best way to spend money? Will it provide the most employment and the best kind of employment for the least dollar cost? Third, we should ask ourselves: What is the value of the goods or services provided by this additional employment? Fourth, is the money being spent to provide employment for people who really need it as opposed to those who may not need it so much? Finally, what will the impact of this increased employment, this increased spending, be on inflation?
I should like to go back to the first of those questions. I should like to go back to the first question I asked in this chamber on the last occasion when the predecessor bill was before a committee and to the same question I asked the first time this bill was before a committee. I am interested in knowing what planning figures the minister is using to predict when we are likely to peak. In what month and in what year are we likely to experience the highest number of unemployed Canadians? Will it be 1981, 1980, 1982, 1983? Which month of which year is the minister using as the date on which we are likely to experience the highest unemployment? This occurs in the context of the timing-whether or not this bill asks Parliament to endorse the spending of money when it is needed most. The minister has the figures; he refused to share them
with us on a previous occasion. 1 hope he may be more forthcoming today.


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member finally got around to reading my opening address because the principles he put forward were those contained in my opening statement. So it is nice to know that after 20 hours of debate he has finally got around to understanding what the purpose of the employment tax credit bill is.
He still avoids one basic point, however, which is this. The employment tax credit bill does not represent the entire package we are putting forward as employment measures. It is one of several initiatives we have put forward and I would again remind the hon. member that this is simply an extension of the existing tax credit program until we have had the time and the opportunity to examine properly the changes which are taking place in the economy of this country and have reviewed federal programs through a variety of procedures.
We are extending this legislation for the following reason. When this government came to office there were no job creation programs in existence. Canada Works was cancelled and phased out, and the hon. member who has been belabouring his acute concern about the plight of the Atlantic provinces is a member of the same government which cancelled the Canada Works program, which would have created jobs directly and have been of major benefit in the Atlantic provinces and in the eastern portion of Quebec.
He cannot have it both ways. He cannot come here and flail away at the inadequacy of our programs when he belonged to a government which cancelled the very programs which were a major benefit to that region. He was a member of a caucus then. Did he stand up in caucus and complain about what an awful thing my predecessor was doing in cancelling those programs? I did not hear him say anything in Parliament about that. I did not see him rise to his feet in righteous indignation concerning the awful measures which were being taken to void completely an area of its major employment programs. I suggest that he has gone through a little Saul of Tarsus routine. He has changed his mind, as people are apt to do when they change sides in the House.


Bob Rae: It happened to you, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: Perhaps the hon. member is learning from a good teacher. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and we repeat it again, that we have put into place in this country not just the employment tax credit program, which is designed to provide job availabilities for close to 50,000 participants in the next year. We have also put into effect a number of direct job-creation measures which go on top of those already in existence. We are spending well over $116 billion in this department on a variety of training and job measures.
Now, if the hon. member thinks that is inadequate, he should be debating that entire package and not picking out one piece or another. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is
June 11, 1980

not the place to do that, just as it is not the place to debate energy policy or all the other irrelevancies that have been brought into this debate in the last 24 hours of the time of the House. This bill has consumed that much time primarily because the hon. member opposite is asking the same questions over and over and getting the exact answers he wants but not registering them on whatever litmus paper he uses to record these things.
The fact of the matter is that when it comes to the assessment of what we are expecting in the unemployment field, the statistics are in front of hon. members opposite. I do not have to keep providing them to them. They get them every month from Statistics Canada. The patterns are there. We know that the seasonal variations of employment rise and fall according to conditions of seasonal employment in winter, summer, spring and fall. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we are very vulnerable and sensitive to the decisions made outside our boundaries. We cannot in any way control the decisions of the U.S. federal reserve board that were made last year to hike interest rates up to 20 per cent, causing a recession in the United States, which caused a downturn in their economy, causing them to buy less pulp and paper, less lumber and less manufactured goods, thus creating an unemployment problem in Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we do not have control over the United States. We could influence them-my hon. colleague who just left, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, does his best-but we are not in any way going to try to pretend that we are omnipotent when it comes to economic matters, just as the hon. member's government was not omnipotent. No government is omnipotent.
All I am saying is that the hon. member for Calgary West is asking questions that have been answered fully both by the Minister of Finance in his initial statement and by myself in repeating those statements. We told him what we expect the unemployment rate in this country to be. It will be at the level of about 8 per cent. He said that he does not agree and that it will be 9 per cent. That is up to him. Wood Gundy has its figures. The reason economics is a dismal science is because everyone has a gloomy prediction to make, and they are all different. However, that is our best forecast for next year. Mr. Chairman, 1 will not predict beyond that. 1 am not going to vault myself into crystal balling into 1983, 1984 or 1985.
Part of the reason, in case it has escaped the notice of the hon. member, that we are doing the review is to come up with those very assessments so that we can establish proper calculations and reorient our programs accordingly. That is why we are doing it. He is a member of a parliamentary committee to do that kind of study. I think, Mr. Chairman, he should curb his impatience, proceed in a logical, rational manner to get representations from across this country and join with his parliamentary colleagues and present the proper report, which 1 would be very glad to receive.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed Hansard for the last two committee meetings, and I find a perfect correla-
Employment Tax Credit Act
tion and a perfect relationship between the lack of knowledge on the minister's part and the length of his answers.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The difficulty is whether the hon. member wants to continue the debate or make what is known in the French language as "un rappel au Reglement". that is. a question related to the Standing Orders of the House. If the hon. member wants to pursue a point of order, I will hear him. If he wants to continue the debate, I will not recognize him.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, on my point of order, I asked a question, and I think an examination of Hansard will indicate that the minister took some considerable time and did not answer my question.
Is it part of my 20 minutes when he chooses not to answer my question or do I still get a chance to ask additional questions? Can he eat up all my time by talking about something different from what I asked?


Denis Éthier: Order, please. It is well understood that the Chair does not comment upon the quality or lack thereof of either the questions or the answers in the House of Commons, except in some reference to parliamentary language and matters of that nature.
Certainly some hon. members who are questioning might far prefer to have the majority of their time dedicated to questions, with the smallest possible amount of time dedicated to answers. Other hon. members might feel the opposite way. The time allotted is 20 minutes, and the manner in which it is used is the business of the hon. member and the minister, not that of the Chair.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Chairman, my question is to the hon. minister. I do not wish to belabour this point, but I think that something has to be cleared up from when questions stopped the last day.
This is a very simple act. All it is is an employment tax credit program. What I am trying to point out is that I feel that $100 million in the total program is being targeted to areas, as the minister has indicated himself. We do not know what is happening with this tax credit program, but it is still a loss of revenue to the government of $100 million. Perhaps 60 per cent, according to the minister's best estimates, are using it. Can we afford to carry this program and gamble $40 million or just throw it away? That is what we are doing, and that is the point I am making.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member brings up a good question. The only thing I would ask is that he try to straighten it out with his colleague from Calgary West, who suggested in the House that a direct job creation program is a waste of money and that a tax credit program is a more efficient use of our money. However, that is something between the two of them. I must confess that I have some of the same reservations about the use of the tax credit methodology. It is one that is widely used in a number of countries, and the evaluations have shown that the actual incremental number of

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
jobs can range between 20 per cent and 50 per cent in those areas. We have estimated, in interim reports that we have had, that it was around 60 per cent. As I indicated, a full evaluation will be done upon the completion of the cycle of this program, if the bill passes, which we hope to have by the end of the summer. I did indicate to the hon. member that I would provide that report to him. Sixty per cent is a judgment call in part based upon the auditing that we do through the Department of National Revenue. But we do ask for the base line employees and the actual numbers.
All I can indicate to the hon. member is that again, as I said, we do not have the ability to pry into the minds of some 18,000 businessmen who have signed up agreements under this program as to whether they were going to hire people in any event. They have to sign certificates saying it is incremental work, and I would suspect from the monitoring that we have done that there is a fair amount of it. That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, why we did not want to put all our eggs into the one basket of the employment tax credit.
That is why we wanted to vary the program and test it out. It is certainly my intention, again through the review process we are initiating, to get calculations from other areas and try to develop a more in-the-field observation from our own regional offices as to the actual incremental number of jobs put into the work force as a consequence of the tax credit.
I might say that there might be a particular value not just in the general employment field, but again in trying to target in on special needs. There are groups of people in the labour force who we know are more difficult to employ either because of lack of skills or because of certain work handicaps they may suffer, and tax credits may be a way of providing a direct incentive to the employer to bring those people into the work force. That will be one of the areas of examination we will be making in this review in terms of prescribing longer term programs.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Chairman, in the minister's words, I made some serious charges when I said that 1 felt the program was being abused. I want to really clear up this situation. I am not casting aspersions on the businessmen who sign up for the program, nor am I casting aspersions on the department itself. What I am suggesting is that someone from the manpower offices who is responsible for the program may be overzealous and go out and solicit. We mentioned before that in a high growth area the employer would never even think of applying for this program if he did not get someone from the manpower office knocking on his door and saying, "This is a new job and you qualify for this program." The businessman is not at fault here. I am saying that somehow something breaks down, and 1 think that is where the abuse comes in.
I have done some more checking myself. The minister said that he has checked in offices in my riding. I would like to know how he checked the people who were going out and asking employers to take part in the program because it was a high growth area.
I should like to suggest also to the hon. member for South West Nova, who mentioned that there were not many employers there taking part in the program, that they do not do so because these are high growth areas. That is what I think is wrong with the tax credit program. The only guys who are going to use it are those who are making the bucks. It is of no use to someone who is breaking even.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would say to the hon. member for Athabasca that his observation may be a proper one. We have several thousand employers and you cannot monitor them every day if someone is being overzealous in promoting the program and suggesting its benefits could be used, not in the way the program is designed, but in a way simply to add an additional employee to the factory, we would want to correct that abuse.
We did check with the employment offices in the hon. member's riding to determine that, and we were not able to get any evidence. I would simply suggest to him again that we unquestionably did undertake a major promotion of the program, because when it was first introduced in 1978 there was not much uptake. I think the program produced only 16,000 places. Since then we have been able to increase it to around 50,000. I am sure that within that number there are some who may be abusing it.
If the hon. member has suggestions as to how we can ensure that the abuses are not extended, without increasing the red tape or the regulations, I would be very glad to hear them. I hope it is something on which we will be able to get a better fix as we look at the program more carefully over the summer and fall months. Perhaps this is something for which the parliamentary committee in its hearings across the country may get a better idea.


Jack Wendele Shields: I am glad the minister pointed out that the number went up from 16,000 to 45,000. That is my whole point. I think the 16,000 probably was a realistic level where the program was unsolicited from the employer. I am wondering if it was advertised, whether people were informed by way of brochures, rather than have someone go out as a salesman to the employer's office saying, "This program is available, you are expanding, new jobs are being created and you fall under this program."
I am not suggesting for a moment that the individual who goes out from the manpower office is attempting to do something illegal. I am not suggesting that the employer feels he is doing something illegal. He feels that he falls under this program because it is brought out to him and explained in this way, and this is an education program, as the minister mentioned. I should like to suggest that no one go out from the manpower office, that it should be advertised in the paper and that brochures be sent out. That is my point.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief questions because in the previous Parliament it was my privilege to have had the responsibility of being the minister of employment and immigration when this program was initiated. When the pro-
June 11, 1980

gram was initiated, we built in a lot of road blocks and there was too much red tape. As a result of that, the program was not working, so we called in the business community and asked them what was wrong with it. They said there was too much red tape, there were too many road blocks. We were being pressured constantly by a very good critic, namely, the former member for Hamilton West, who indicated that we should remove some of this red tape. This was asked by the opposition parties who said, "For heaven sake, trust the businessmen. These people out there are not crooks. They want to work, they want to create the jobs, but they will not go through all this red tape in the interest of proving their honesty." So we followed that particular program.
In the first instance, I think the program was taken up in large measure in the province of Quebec. We checked with our people there to find out why it was being taken up in Quebec and found that the reason was the leadership given by some officials in the Department of Employment and Immigration who let the businessmen know that this plan was available to them, that they could hire people, that there was a tax credit available to them. Then we removed much of the red tape, not only at the behest of the opposition parties but at the behest of the Canadian business community. As a result of that, the program took off and became very successful.
We did not have all of the protection built in that we had in the original instance, but we felt that the Canadian businessman could be trusted. I think that the figures we are hearing today from the minister are accurate to the degree that they can be. I think this will require further checking and testing because we are dealing with taxpayers' money, but I commend the minister for continuing in this particular vein because this is a good program and is creating jobs.
My question to the minister concerns the time element. When it was my privilege to be the minister, we saw the program taking off and being successful and we needed more money quickly. Is there a time frame with which the minister is faced in order to keep this program operational?


Lloyd Axworthy: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member repeat his question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: When I had the privilege of serving in this particular role and the program took off, we had real concern abut adequate funding being available. 1 know that the minister brought this program in almost immediately after the House assembled, and I wonder about the time frame for this program. Are we facing a situation where we might lose momentum as a result of the delays we are facing today and have faced in the past?


Lloyd Axworthy: As I pointed out when we introduced this bill two or three days after Parliament opened, the provisions in the bill expired as of March 31. We have tried to maintain some degree of continuity by still issuing application forms, with the caveat that it did require the ultimate approval of Parliament. But in effect, at this very time we are debating
Employment Tax Credit Act
this bill, there is no employment tax credit program, it has expired, and we are simply asking for an extension.
As I pointed out, we have had well over 20 hours of debate or discussion on this bill. Perhaps I should not say "on this bill", because of the 20 hours only one hour and ten minutes perhaps have been devoted to the bill. The rest of the time has been devoted to a wide variety of fascinating matters that members of the opposition have been prepared to bring forward. In fact, we have spent an inordinate amount of time on what the hon. member for Athabasca said is a very simple bill extending a program that has already been in operation.
So in answer to the hon. member, I have to say that the longer we continue with this, the more difficult it will be to maintain continuity and momentum and it will probably hurt the program.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have one further suggestion to make to the minister. 1 have to disagree with my friend opposite, the hon. member for Athabasca, who was talking about using newspaper advertising and bulletins and papers. Our experience with that is that it does not work. I think the average Canadian sees something like 600 advertisements a day in one shape or another. It is only by personal contact in promoting this program that it was made to work in Quebec in the first instance, and it is what is making it work today. I hope the minister will not say to his officials, "Do not go out to promote this program." Just the opposite should be true.


Mr. Hargrave:: Mr. Chairman, I have a short comment for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and hopefully his staff. It relates to a very specific aspect of employment, that is, the question of farm labour. In my own case I suppose it is even more specific. I want to talk very briefly about the help required in cattle operations in western Canada. That is my special interest.
I believe it was last Friday that the hon. member for Bow River made what I think were the only remarks on the subject of farm labour in these proceedings in Committee of the Whole. The minister may remember them. I think they were appropriate remarks. He spoke from experience and long years of a genuine interest in the subject. At that time he reminded the committee about the problem of perhaps inexperienced and new farm helpers which are available from time to time through employment offices for work on farms. Also he mentioned the concern of the farmer employer about very, very expensive modern-day equipment. He spoke of tractors and implements that were worth up to $30,000.
I share that concern, but I want to comment a little more about the type of manpower I can hopefully get from manpower offices which might be of more help to us in the cattle business. It is not an easy job to convince young people, especially, to come out into the country and work on a cattle ranch. This is not a critical comment about the minister and his department, but there are valid reasons for this situation,

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
even when there are areas and regions which have a good supply of labour in these times of high unemployment.
Of course, the reasons for this relate to the fact that those kinds of jobs are a long way from the bright lights, especially for young people. I can tell members that that is a major factor in this day and age. Another reason is that it comes as quite a shock to a young person, whose idea of cattle ranching is an image he has picked up from watching western movies on television, that we have to work in the winter and keep ourselves warm outdoors all day. He loses his enthusiasm in a hurry when that situation becomes apparent to him.
We in the cattle business have the same problem with respect to expensive machinery. We hesitate to allow inexperienced help to operate that machinery, even if we are resigned to that fact. I am thinking of a modern-day, 14-foot, self-propelled hay swather which can be worth up to $35,000. We are faced with the same situation. It is just as significant that we have trained stock horses. Sometimes it takes five, six or seven years to properly train a stock horse to work with cattle. We hesitate about allowing inexperienced help to ride and use those horses.
The type of labour in which I am interested for my own operation is full-time, year-round help. When we hire them, we hope it is by the year and that they stay for ten years. Of course, experienced help who would qualify in these areas are very difficult to hire. If they are very experienced they work on their own, which is understandable. A few times I have gone to the manpower office and have been successful in getting help. More recently I find the local officials seem to feel that they should specify a minimum wage which as a prospective employer I should be expected to pay. A good question is: How much is an experienced man worth?
My own experience in this specialized field is that I always have to pay more than perhaps the going rate in order to entice them, if you like, to come out and work on a cattle ranch. But it becomes a little annoying when Manpower officials suggest that there is a certain wage, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, that is expected to be maintained. I should like to ask the minister whether that is official policy and what comments he might have on that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I think the contributions made by the hon. member and the ones made previously by the hon. member for Bow River have drawn attention to the very specific problem of providing a proper work force in the agricultural field. I took note of this problem last evening and I will address myself to it.
As far as the specific questions are concerned, the program is available to farmers if they would like to use it. In the last year of the program some 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the 50,000 jobs actually created were in the field of agriculture, farming or animal husbandry. I agree it is a small number, but probably the reason for it is the nature of the occupation as well as the nature of the program. It is not designed specifically to address the concerns of a livestock raiser.
The issue of minimum wage is something over which we have absolutely no control. Obviously it is within provincial jurisdiction. They set the minimum wage as well as the wage rates in various training programs. We are now in a position where, within the next 12 months or so, we will be negotiating with the provinces concerning the Adult Occupational Training Act where we put out a substantial amount of money but do not necessarily control the type of training being offered in each of the provinces. I will make a point in those negotiations to raise some of the concerns about agricultural training.
I should like to make one comment to the hon. member which perhaps is something that goes back to his view of the attitude of young Canadian people toward working on farms. We operate an exchange program of farm students between certain European countries and our own. Several weeks ago I met with the sponsors of that program. They indicated that they can recruit enough trained and interested students from Europe, but that they cannot attract similar numbers of Canadian students to go overseas to learn about farm methods in Denmark, The Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries or West Germany. They feel that one of the reasons is that there seems to be a negative attitude toward going into farm work at the present time. It is something we will have to address and perhaps something our department, in combination with the Minister of Agriculture, can look at.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I have some further comments, Mr. Chairman. I must admit that perhaps my comments are not specifically on the application of this particular program, but certainly they are on the question of farm labour. I point out that these additional programs about which the minister spoke do not lend themselves to long-time, full-time employment. We in the cattle operations are quite resigned-and have been for many years-to the fact that we have to train our own young people. I find it interesting that the best source of young people really genuinely interested in this field is people who come from a long distance away, such as from the province of Ontario or Quebec. They travel a couple of thousand miles and show a genuine interest in sticking to it. I have had much better results from that source of employment.
It is rather ironic that about the only time the local young people, especially those of the cities, seem to be willing and anxious to come out-to put it rather crudely, to do us a favour and work for us-is when they have unpaid bills on their financed cars, which they will lose if they do not get a payment in pretty quick. Under those circumstances, they suddenly become interested in our type of work, but winter usually scares them off.
Again, coming back to my one point, I am sure that the minister is aware that there are no minimum wages for agriculture-related work, certainly not in Alberta. 1 am not questioning whether or not there should be minimum wages, because there is a reason in the history of that situation as to why there are no minimum wages. Is it the policy of the officers in the field to suggest a minimum wage which must be
June 11, 1980

guaranteed before we can even get serious about hiring fulltime employees?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it is not a specific policy. We do recognize that there has to be a minimum amount of remuneration for people who go into the work force, but because of the nature of the farming community where other services are provided, such as room and board, there is no minimum wage. As the hon. member has said, the minimum wage guideline is a decision which is made by the provinces. I will undertake to discuss that topic with the provincial ministers when 1 have the opportunity.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Chairman, I have just one other observation. I do not believe that it will lead to a question. I want to give the minister a specific example. I once put an order in to the local manpower office for help. 1 specified that I wanted an applicant who was reasonably competent in the saddle. 1 did not expect a bronco-rider, a professional rider or anybody like that. It turned out that the manpower office received one application from an individual who described himself as a horse trainer. The minimum salary expected for him was $600 a month plus room and board! That particular individual may have been a horse trainer, but he did not fill the bill at all. I think he had some experience in training horses. To me that is a good example of a minimum wage which was used in an entirely wrong situation.
I make these remarks for the benefit of the minister and his staff just to let them know that, while 1 am sure he does not hear very often from those of us who are in the market for a full-time, year-round employee, we sometimes feel a little less than adequately served. Perhaps it is because of the nature of [DOT] the jobs which we offer, but when we get employees who are willing to stay, they are very well paid. We often feel that there just is not enough of them when we need them.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Chairman, although I know that the minister has had several questions from other hon. members on the subject of studies which might be undertaken to show the effectiveness of this particular program, I would like to ask a couple myself.
1 notice that on April 24 the parliamentary secretary to the minister, in an address to the House, referred to a study which was based on some 5,000 people who were employed under the program and showed how many of those people had been unemployed, for what periods of time and so on. Could the minister tell us if there have been any programs which would show how long the jobs created under this program have lasted and how long those people who have been employed under the program remained employed?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, by our best estimates, the average number of weeks that are used under this program is 46. As the hon. member knows, the program must be a minimum of three months' duration and are an average of 12 months, it is about a 46 week average over all.
If 1 understand the hon. member's second question, what we can gather from the interim report-and I want to make it
Employment Tax Credit Act
clear that it is simply an interim evaluation which will not be completed until the end of this summer-about 50 per cent of those who join the program stay on the job after the program comes to an end.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Chairman, I wonder as well if in the study which was referred to there was any breakdown in terms of male/female employment and in terms of native employment?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, in that interim study there was a breakdown between male and female employees. We estimated that about 40 per cent of the participants in the program were female. The range was between 35 per cent and 40 per cent. The reason for that figure is that most of the work is concentrated in the manufacturing sector or the goods-pro-ducing sector. As the hon. member well knows, that is a sector which has not been available to women up to this point in time.
We hope to be able to break down those barriers through some of the programs we introduced last week, but it will be a long-term program and, as a result, the figures do not reflect the over-all percentage of women in the work force.


Mr.   de Jong@: Were there any figures in terms of native employment?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, because of the nature of this program there was no specific breakdown for native people because the requirement of the employment tax credit program is that, again, we use private sector employers. There are not a large number of such employers within the band council or reserve areas that were being used. If there is some way of getting such figures, I will attempt to get them for the hon. member.


Mr.   de Jong@: I would like to question the minister a bit more about native employment. As the minister may be aware, I represent the constituency of Regina East. That constituency has a large number of native people among which there is an extremely high rate of unemployment. The Saskatchewan Federation of Indians conducted a study in 1978 which suggested that up to 700 to 800 Indian people from the reserves are moving into Regina every year, which is only adding to the unemployment there.
Would the minister have available for me any figures relating to native unemployment in Regina, particularly with regard to treaty and status Indian people?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 met with the officials of the Saskatchewan government about two weeks ago to discuss their proposals for an urban and native program. 1 am recalling offhand, but I think they estimated that unemployment rates were in the area of 40 per cent to 50 per cent, which is about the same unemployment rate that is occasioned on the reserves or in the non-status Indian community. That is one of the reasons we have introduced special programs which relate to the problems of native people and are presently negotiating with a number of native organizations in western Canada to determine if they can get those programs started this summer.

June 11. 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
We have had some very good discussions with the native organizations.
I would point out to the hon. member, so that he will not make the same mistake which the hon. member for Calgary West continually makes, that this is not the only program. We are spending the substantial amount of close to $70 million on the LEAP program of which close to 40 per cent of the participants are native people.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the programs that are available. The tragedy of this debate is that I am more aware than the minister of what he has and has not done in the employment-creation field. 1 am aware that there are many programs, and I think 1 know more about them than the minister.


Denis Éthier: If the hon. member has a point of order, would he come to it? I gather that it was not a point of order.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Chairman, I would like to question the minister further about the plans, ideas and philosophy of the government as it relates to native people. I understand that treaty Indians are not included in the unemployment statistics. If this is so, would the minister explain the rationale behind that policy. Also, is there any thought of providing or keeping accurate records on the employment of treaty Indian people?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, at the present moment, Statistics Canada does not cover reserves in its labour force survey. But there are ways of determining certain figures, which are drawn primarily from the Department of Indian Affairs. That is where we get our figures.


Mr.   de Jong@: Is it the philosophy of the government to continue to accept the responsibility for treaty Indian people after they leave the reserve and enter into an urban lifestyle?


Lloyd Axworthy: Again, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out, through the initiation of a number of LEAP programs our department has accepted some of the job proposals and job implementations used by native people in the country. I would also point out a fairly interesting innovation with which the hon. member's colleagues from Winnipeg may be familiar. In the major initiative that I announced with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in Winnipeg two weeks ago, we indicated that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was interested in joining in the agreement to provide special programs for native people who were moving off the reserve into the larger urban centres. We will test that to see how it works, as part of the over-all employment creation program for the city of Winnipeg.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Chairman, the problem with the LIP, LEAP and OFY type of grants is that they are generally of short duration. It can even be claimed that they sometimes create havoc in the lives of participants through a sense of insecurity. People do not have the opportunity to buy a home
and establish a permanent lifestyle because they never know whether the grants will be renewed or what sort of changes may be made in the programs and the philosophies of the government. It is often found that people who exist on grants acquire a great expertise in "grantmanship" and that a lot of their abilities are wasted.
It is not a very wise thing to use community groups to provide needed social and human services, particularly as they relate to native communities. It is better if they are trained to do these things themselves and they are often in the best position to help themselves. It is only good sense to encourage this approach.
The major problem with all these programs is that they are short term and it is not known whether they will continue from one year to the next. Often they are programs that deliver essential social services that the government cannot provide. All too often the services of social welfare departments and hospitals are inaccessible to the native people because of the cultural alienation that exists. It is only sensible to provide human services to the native organizations through the native communities. It appears to me to be cynical to make them short-term projects. This creates disillusionment and a sense that they are receiving gifts for which they must plead and connive, bow and scrape for, rather than giving them the feeling that they are getting money to supply services that they have a right to.
I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to the short-time factor that is involved in the job creation type of program and to ask his department for proposals that would allow long-term funding for native organizations. I wonder if the minister could respond to this suggestion.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member that one of the main objectives of members of this House should be to try to break that horrendous cycle of dependency and poverty that native people in this country experience, but it will not take place overnight.
If the hon. member has been following the announcements made by several of my colleagues, he will know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has indicated that he wants to restore a sense of autonomy and independence to band councils so that they may make their own economic and social decisions.
We are attempting to come to grips with the question of land claims which would put a substantial amount of capital in the hands of native organizations and band councils and give them a major source of money for investment so that they may develop their own programs and resources.
I agree with the direction that the hon. member recommends we take and indeed we are trying to move that way. I would ask him to reflect upon some of the initiatives we have taken recently through my department to begin the process of longer-term economic development. Through the local economic development assistance program we intend to set up a series of projects across Canada designed to help communities establish economic development corporations which will enable
June 11, 1980

them to initiate the analysis and marketing feasibility studies necessary for their communities and to obtain the seed capital to invest in new business opportunities.
It is my hope and ambition that these pilot projects will show how we can expand the whole concept of economic development for native people, as opposed to short-term assistance.
I do not think we should disregard or deny, however, the value of the shorter-term job-creation programs. 1 put this question very explicitly to native leaders when they were in this city three or four weeks ago at the council of chiefs meeting. I asked whether they wanted us to cancel the job-creation programs and the universal answer was that they did not. They considered them necessary for two reasons. First, they provided work as opposed to being on the pogey. In many cases the work is in and around the reserves, which is very valuable. A number of the projects concern the development of roads, transportation systems, sewer systems, public works programs and so on. The hon. member has visited many of the same reserves that I have and he knows that many of them need substantial public works improvements.
More important is the fact that the short-term job-creation programs also provide job experience in new settings for native people. It is often the first opportunity for them. I can think of a number of projects that I helped get established in my own city when I was working at the university, such as the Winnipeg home improvement project. A LIP grant was used to establish a skill training program in which approximately 80 per cent of the participants were native. We kept track of the program and found that 50 or 60 per cent of the participants found full-time employment. It provided them with their first opportunity to gain on-the-job experience. They acquired certain attitudes and habits which were useful in a new environment.
I do not apologize for the short-term job-creation programs, therefore, and I think we must continue to use them. I do agree, however, that we should shift the emphasis to long-term job creation and in particular allow native people and organizations to make the economic decisions for themselves.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the minister except to point out how cruel it is when someone is taken off the welfare rolls, becomes involved in something positive in the community for a few months, and then all at once it is over and they are back on welfare. That is where the cruelty is.
I have also been involved with numerous projects in Regina and Vancouver and have found that to be a problem. People have to go back on welfare when projects end because there is no other employment for them. They are back to square one but with a higher level of frustration.
The problem of native employment, youth employment and employment for women is tied in to our economic strategy. The minister was right when he objected to the narrow definition that some of the Conservative critics used with respect to job creation. The minister claims that there are all kinds of job-
Employment Tax Credit Act
creation programs as a result of investment in industry, special assistance, etc, but that is where we take objection to the economic policies of the government. They are the same type of policies that were practised by the former Conservative government, which are the same as those that were practised by the previous Liberal government. These are policies essentially of constriction, of cutbacks and of lay-offs.
We have tried to solve the problem of inflation on the backs of working people. We have been quite willing to accept higher levels of unemployment because it is supposed to solve our inflation problem. The cruelty is that we have not put into place programs that will help those people who are bearing the brunt of the fight against inflation. We have, indeed, shoved them out into the cold. The puny programs that have been brought forward go nowhere near helping those people that government policies have thrown into the garbage heap of the unemployed.
Could the minister enlighten us as to what the economic policies of the government are in terms of employment? Does the government still accept the notion or the goal of full employment, or is 4 per cent, 6 per cent, or 8 per cent unemployment an acceptable level of unemployment? What is the acceptable level of unemployment to the minister and to the government?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, before I answer the last question, let me point out for the record that the member has suggested the programs we have announced have a short terminal point. As I indicated in my opening statement when 1 introduced the job-creation programs two weeks ago, in the community development program part of direct job creation, if a program demonstrates its usefulness or its viability then it can be extended and be transferred into LEAP, which is a three-year long employment-type training program. If the member is asked, then he should be prepared to say that there is that option of a continuation of the program. As well, under the community services portion of the program there is a three-year time phase for that program.
In terms of the last program, I would not want to take on the task of answering for the entire economic strategy of the government. But I did indicate, as I have several times in the House, that we are now initiating a review of the employment strategy for the Government of Canada. The task force is now in place. The parliamentary committee will be starting its visits and consultations in the spring, the summer and fall of this year. It is out of that process that we hope to be able to arrive at both an estimate of the changing nature of the job requirements in Canada, and how as a government we can respond to them. I would simply ask the member to restrain his anticipation until we have been able to complete that review,


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Chairman, does it mean that the minister is not prepared to give or cannot give us a figure today of what is an acceptable level of unemployment in this country?
2006

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, from my point of view having anyone out of a job is unacceptable. I will try to do my best to deal with it, but in the realistic parameters that we have we are working under a number of limitations. But that is the ultimate objective, if you like taking into account all of the slippages, and also the fact that some people just do not want to work. But we will tackle unemployment with all the tools that are available to us in the best way we think.
There are major changes going on in the economic structure of Canada. We have to look at those, and simply to scoff at them, as some members are apt to do, I think is simply showing a know-nothing attitude. We have to look at how conditions change in this country, how we can respond to those changes and how we can use our resources most effectively.


Denis Éthier: I want to indicate to the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown that the Chair is well aware that he has been patient in waiting for his turn. But there is a requirement to keep some proportion on both sides of the House, so I will recognize next the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence and following him the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown.


Mr. de Corneille:: Mr. Chairman, in case we have forgotten our purpose here or what the subject is of this debate, I rise to speak on behalf of the speedy and merciful passage of the bill to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, which is Bill C-19.
It seems to me that it goes without saying that I should support this bill. I am deeply concerned that this piece of legislation should be passed and passed urgently. It seems to me that we are trying to get under way a program that needs to be continued, and if we do not work and act quickly it will fall by the wayside and its momentum will be lost.
We understand also that this is not the only bill that will deal with unemployment. It is only one weapon in an arsenal of attempts to work with and overcome the problems that face those who are unemployed. It seems to me that if we have any compassion for those who are unemployed and if we really cared, we would not find it necessary to have 20 hours of debate, or more, of constant repetition.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you sit down, then?


Roland de Corneille: We would not find it necessary to talk about something that has already been tested and used, and whose value has already been realized. To understand what has happened in the past, we see also that it is a program to meet the small businessman's needs and help him fulfil his ability to make a contribution to the private sector, to the whole country and to its employment programs as well.
We see the opportunity here of giving the small businessman an opportunity to participate in the economy and also to help the unemployed. It seems to me that it is a method that has been approved as being one of the few methods which the Conservative party has recommended in terms of dealing with unemployment, because it is to stimulate the economy by stimulating business.
In that respect the principle seems to be good and accepted by all sides. However, if we accept that that is one tool, not the only method of approaching unemployment, and if we also realise the fact that there are many other programs which the Minister of Employment and Immigration has announced that this will be part of a wider package of programs, then we can see that there are other parts that we can look forward to if members do not want this program alone.
In the meantime, we have an urgent situation. If people are unemployed and in need of jobs, why does this House persist in debating something we all understand? A lot of people are wondering about this. People who are watching this debate on television and people who sit in the House know why this is Committee of the Whole and why the whole of Parliament is not here right now. They ask what is happening. Nothing is happening. That is why often all the benches are empty. There is a delay, if you will; there is obstruction in being able to bring forward legislation that deals with urgent needs. There has to be some concern of conscience on the part of all of those who have to think about people who are unemployed as to whether we are really dealing with these issues or toying and playing with them for political ends and purposes.
If we really cared, we would get on with the job. We would get on with the job by passing this particular piece of legislation. Using our committee on employment and immigration which exists for that purpose, we could discuss employment packages, or better packages if we have any. Then we could come back to seek amendments for additional bills when they come forward dealing with the problems at which they are aimed. This bill is not aimed at dealing with the whole unemployment problem of Canada; we all know that. We know that it is an urgent bill. It is a transitional one, to keep something going while we bring forward other legislation that would deal later with the total unemployment problem of Canada.
We inherited a situation where there were no funds to deal with these problems at the present time. We have to at least perpetuate what is there and keep it going because it is a good program. We should be able to assess its value. No program is perfect. No one program will solve all problems for all regions. The question is whether this Parliament intends in the next little while to help those urgently in need of that help, and to get a bill through to support a principle on which pretty well everyone has agreed.
Why is this bill being delayed? People who watch Parliament on television and who follow Parliament will realize that the vain repetition and idle discussion that is taking place is not contributing to the passage of this urgent bill. I feel that is true of other debates they are watching on television. I do not want to say that any one party is guilty. In fact, I am quite concerned that people may become disillusioned with the entire parliamentary system. Look at the debate yesterday. There are problems facing Canada in terms of unemployment, inflation, energy and national unity. What was the subject chosen for debate during the time of the House of Commons used as prime time by the opposition? It was apparently a very
June 11, 1980

important subject to them, the metric system. That is what got our attention.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 do so with great reluctance. My point of order is that the choice for opposition day has absolutely nothing to do with the content of this bill. I do not understand how a member can stand during this debate and speak about an event which took place on another day on another piece of legislation or, for that matter, an event which has absolutely no relativity or relationship to what is before us.


Denis Éthier: The Chair has to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that he has not in fact presented a point of order for consideration.
1 might add that if some member wants as part of his address on the subject matter before us to make reference to the choice of an opposition motion, then it seems perfectly within the rules to do so.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a similar point of order. You ruled before you heard all the discussion on this, and that is your right. I agree with a lot of what the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain said; I think he had a legitimate point of order. However, it should not be directed toward the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence, but rather the Conservative opposition which has filibustered this bill for about six weeks in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Denis Éthier: The Chair will attempt to serve hon. members who obviously do not feel too inclined to address themselves to points of order but rather to quick points of debate. 1 will hear the hon. member for Calgary West, but I would ask hon. members to remember that if they rise on a point or order, it would be helpful if the Chair could hear the point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, both officially and unofficially behind the curtain we have offered to the party opposite, the government, quick passage of this important bill at the point when they answer our questions. The filibuster is on the other side of the House. The extraneous comment brought in about the opposition day is another indication of the government's desire, for whatever reason, to extend this bill and keep us longer in debate.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order. This is a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Denis Éthier: The same point of order?


David Michael Collenette: On the comments of the hon. member for Calgary West. Is he undertaking to make a House order that we would dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage of this bill by six o'clock tonight? If he is making us an offer on the
Employment Tax Credit Act
floor of the House to get this bill through, I am sure the minister, in consultation with the New Democratic Party, will be more than happy to make accommodations. Is the hon. member offering to make that an order of the House?


Denis Éthier: This becomes more and more difficult for the Chair. My inclination is to suggest that if representatives of the parties want to go behind the curtain and make some arrangement, they should do that rather than do so in this loose fashion. I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary West, but I will begin very soon to apply some sense of order. I want to return to the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence who properly has the floor.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will not take much time. If we get our questions answered instead of being given a filibuster, we are quite prepared to allow the bill to proceed.


David Michael Collenette: When?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: When we get answers. Until then, we will continue to fulfil our obligation on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada and seek answers relevant to this bill.


Denis Éthier: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North rising on a point of order as well?


Mr. Orlikow:: It is on the same point, Mr. Chairman. If there is agreement on the part of the other two parties, we would be quite willing to continue the debate until six o'clock and finish it by that time. We would be quite willing to agree to that. In saying that, I want to say to the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence that the kind of speech he is now making is not conducive to encouraging members on this side to stop the debate.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Chairman, if my words have in any way contributed to at least a discussion and a dialogue between the parties, I would regard them as being of some value. What I am really pleading for is that we consider the needs of the people to whom this bill directs itself, the unemployed.
I would like to point out that it is a very simple bill. It is a continuation of a former policy. 1 am really pleading that we not use this forum as anything other than a place to pass bills and to address ourselves directly to the issues at stake. No one side is solely at fault, but we all have a responsibility to try to make sure this bill reaches its destination with all haste.
In that spirit, I suggest that we ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to do his best, as I hope he is trying to do and know he will try to do, to answer questions. Then if we are promised passage of this bill tonight, that would be to the well-being of all parties.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Chairman, 1 take great offence at the hon. member for Sarnia and the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence lecturing me and my colleagues on the types of questions that we are asking the minister. We are doing this in all sincerity. We are trying to get to the bottom of a $100

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
million bill. If I do not ask the questions my constituents expect me to ask the minister, I am not doing my proper duty as the member of Parliament representing Brampton-George-town. Therefore, I am going to ask my questions and I do not need lectures from those hon. members.
I enjoyed the speech on second reading by the minister's parliamentary secretary. He gave us some interesting statistics, and I want to follow up on a couple of things that he said. He stated that the reaction from business and industry has been remarkable. I am not sure what he means by that. Through the Canadian Federation of Small Business I did a survey in my constituency and I found that about 50 per cent of the small businesses were in favour of this bill. Therefore, I would not say support is overwhelming; I would say some are interested in it and some are not.
We are talking about employment figures. About 19,000 was the figure the hon. member for Louis-Hebert gave the House as far as Ontario is concerned. 1 noticed a 61,000 unemployment increase in Ontario this month. Has the minister any comments to make on how this bill is going to affect Ontario? How many jobs does he expect in Ontario this year as a result of this bill?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, if we go by past standards, of the total 50,000 in the 1979-80 year in the province of Ontario, the number of jobs created was about 19,000.1 would expect the same number to hold true this year.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, I understand that 55 per cent of the total jobs under this plan were taken by youths. May I ask the minister how many of those youths are still employed after two years of the program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that directly because, as I said, we have only done one interim evaluation. We monitored the program based upon 2,500 employees. At that time we indicated that about 55 per cent of the participants in the program continued to be employed in the work place after the termination of the agreement under the tax credit program.


John Horton McDermid: Is the minister telling us he has no statistics on how many of those are still working or how many are no longer employed and are receiving unemployment benefits? He cannot answer that, is that correct?
Is this program integrated in any way with the government's other employment programs, or is it a separate entity? Is the minister regarding the whole thing as part of a package or is this in addition to the package he introduced the other day?


Lloyd Axworthy: I thought I had made it clear on several occasions that in the government's view it is necessary to take a variety of different initiatives in connection with any meaningful job creation program. While the employment tax credit is particularly applicable in areas where there is a high incidence of manufacturing, it is not as useful or as available
where there is a large agricultural or fishing base or where, as in certain areas of the maritimes, there is a slower pace of economic activity. Therefore, it is an integrated package but we are providing a different mixture of programs.
We are asking each of our regional offices to design a blueprint advising us to the best mixture of program for that region, after consultation with the provinces, the employers and the community service sector. So they have some responsibility for designing the "menu"-the selection of services they want to use.


John Horton McDermid: 1 have the latest unemployment statistics before me and I am shocked to find that in a country like ours 431,000 of the unemployed, or something like 44 or 45 per cent, are young people. I ask the minister whether he would not consider waiving the three-month minimum limit applicable to students, because we are getting on into the summer now. Would he also consider raising the minimum rate to $2 for student employees under the program this summer?


Lloyd Axworthy: I do not believe that at the present time the regulations would be waived, but we will take a look at the suggestion. I would point out that the figure he has in front of him was produced prior to full implementation of the summer youth employment program which has put some 70,000 job placements into the market over the summer. This will not solve the entire problem but it will make a dent in that figure. So the May figures, the statistics we have, do not reflect the introduction of the summer youth employment program.


John Horton McDermid: I think that is very misleading because we are talking about 430,000 people who are out in the labour force. That figure does not include the students who are coming out of school now and looking for summer jobs. The youth employment program is designed for the 70,000 students who are getting out of school. So I say to the minister: please do not mix up those two figures and mislead the Canadian people. I think that is very unfair.
The young people today are saying: "I want a meaningful job, not a job which is going to last an average of 48 weeks". They are looking for a job which will last a lifetime. The program before us completely misses this point, as do other government employment programs. I plead with the minister seriously to consider the plight of these young people and design programs in co-operation with the private sector which will lead to the creation of meaningful, long-term jobs.
The minister mentioned earlier that part of the deficit financing is going to help the unemployment program, yet the deficit is going up at the same time as unemployment is going up. The two just do not match. I would ask the minister to take a long, hard look, on behalf of the youth of this country, at meaningful programs which would give them jobs once their education has been completed.
I must admit I am included with my hon. friend on the employment for the eighties committee and I am looking forward to my work. But I do not want the minister to hang his hat on the work of the committee. He should be starting
June 11, 1980

right now, especially with the young people of Canada in mind, because I personally feel it is an absolute disgrace that 431,000 young people in this country, 45 per cent of those without jobs, should be unemployed. It is just not good enough.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, in order not to offend my friend on the Liberal benches, I shall be brief and try to keep to the point-which he did not. Some major problems have arisen in this province since the minister introduced the bill before us. 1 am sure he is not unaware that the unemployment rate in Ontario in particular has risen significantly since this measure was brought down, as, indeed, it has risen across the country. In the major industrial areas of the province unemployment has made dramatic leaps in the past month. Windsor has the highest unemployment rate in the country-we all know the reason for that-and just today in Hamilton, in my own riding, we heard the announcement that Dominion Foundries and Steel Company will be shutting down most if not all of its manufacturing for a week. Incidentally, that is the first time since I have lived there, almost 30 years, that I can remember this company closing down. They are thought of, usually, as a very progressive company and normally they are able to maintain their employment levels.
Anyway, 10,000 additional people will be laid off. That is the equivalent, under a job-creation program such as this, if we take into account the length of time involved, of 200 year-long jobs disappearing just because all these 10,000 people have been laid off for a week. In addition, there will be a marked reduction in the numbers of people who will be making purchases. One must take account of the fear which accompanies these lay-offs. Many of those affected will be reluctant to resume their normal purchasing patterns bearing in mind that the reason given for the lay-offs is a dramatic decline in markets. This is bound to have an effect upon the sale of goods and the flow of services.
With all this in mind, given that the levels of unemployment in Ontario have risen significantly in the past month, given that most of the unemployment is located in the major industrial areas, given that these areas are where most of the young people who are seeking employment live, given that the major unemployment which is occurring almost inevitably results in a decrease in purchasing at the retail level where many of the young people might find work, can the minister outline what measures he might introduce, perhaps supplementary to the bill now before us, which would begin to address themselves to the situation, now crucial, which presently faces us?


Lloyd Axworthy: Again, the hon. member asks questions which could be divided into those having short term and longer term implications. I should like to tell him, as I have told him in the House several times, I believe, that in the specific case of the automobile industry my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has already provided a major program to support the ailing automobile industry and provided a loan guarantee to Chrysler to make sure that it will not fail.
Employment Tax Credit Act
In the meantime, we have introduced into the Windsor area regional benefits under the unemployment insurance program which will provide an additional 12 months of benefits for auto workers in that area. We have also introduced special work programs into the Windsor area, again to make sure there will be a minimum of hardship experienced by the workers who are being laid off. However, we recognize that this is not a sufficient answer and we are presently in discussion with the United Auto Workers, which began two weeks ago and are continuing on a daily basis, to work out what we would consider to be an appropriate response to the problem of lay-offs in the auto industry.
I hope to have these meetings with the UAW concluded some time in the middle of July so that we can come up with a longer-term program, taking into account always that we have certain restraints on the finances of the government and that we cannot simply open the purse wide. Because the purse has already been opened very wide by a wide variety of programs. We are meeting with the UAW to see what we can do to provide longer-term answers. 1 think that indicates a co-operative attitude on the part of labour, employers and the government, which is necessary if we are to come to grips with the problem.
I am also meeting with a number of other major industry associations in Ontario which have job opportunities. A number of areas-for example, the aerospace industry-are not going to be creating unemployment. The aerospace industry will in fact be creating close to 15,000 to 20,000 jobs in the province of Ontario. The real trick is to make sure we find workers who are unemployed in those areas where labour is needed.
That is what we are meeting with the industry about right now, to work out programs and have discussions to provide labour on an industry to industry basis. Again, it is going to require co-operation from the public and the private sector, and that is the approach we are using right now, both in terms of guarantees, as my colleague has done through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and also at the same time looking at the specific problems faced by workers in those areas.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, let us be perfectly frank with each other. The aid to Chrysler will have very little, if any, benefit at this point in time. There are very few new jobs being created and certainly no people being recalled at the moment as a result of the minister's assistance to Chrysler. That, I am sure, we agree on.
In a program such as this you are almost totally reliant on a reasonably buoyant economy to create jobs for people who are going to go into the service and retail sectors for short-term employment. I refer to students, for example. The majority of students require jobs today, and they will need them in June,' July, August and part of September. What we are seeing is a marked increase in the number of people who are unemployed, and most of them are in the major centres of the province.

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Taking that into account and the fact that because those people are unemployed there will be a reduction in purchasing and that that reduction in purchasing inevitably will lead to fewer job opportunities, what then can you use this kind of program for? Where do those people go to find work? I just mentioned that Dominion Foundries will be laying off 10,000 people for seven days. Dominion Foundries has employed people in the past for summer employment. It is very difficult to imagine how they will employ people this year for summer employment. That means that the people who might normally have been employed there will be looking elsewhere, but for the 10,000 people who are unemployed for a week, that is one one fifty-second part of their income for that year that is affected in one way or another, and so they will be reducing their purchasing. As they reduce their purchasing, the jobs that those young people might normally get in department stores and in other summer-type work will not be available. I do not understand how giving money in the way that we are talking about without having developed an over-all strategy will work.
I do not understand where the jobs will come from. I really do not. I am not trying to create a political argument, 1 am being as honest as I can be. I do not know where those jobs are. If the economy is in a decline, as it is, if the major employers are laying off, as they are, and if that has the depressing effect on the economy that we all understand that it has, then the secondary type of job that is being looked for by these people will not be there. I do not understand how a program like this can possibly work in those circumstances. I think that if we were in a period of increasing employment and increasing purchasing and had a more buoyant economy, then we could reasonably expect to see some job opportunities.
Let me suggest that if the government had gone ahead and decided to embark on a major program of house building, that would have created a number of jobs in related industries. We all know, I am sure, that there has been a marked decline in the number of housing starts, although there is still a considerable demand. With that decline we are now down to something like 170,000 starts projected for this year. That is down from what is generally accepted as being a target of 260,000 that would be required if we were to keep pace with the need.
If the government were to embark on that kind of program and were then to use some of this money to support employment in related industries, I could see some benefit from that. I could actually see where the jobs are going to come from. But I cannot. I do not understand how it will work. I do not understand where we are going to create work for the people involved.
We will pass the bill at six o'clock, as far as we are concerned, and the government can go ahead with the business of getting the money out, if there is someone to take advantage of it. My suspicion about this is that what is going to happen is that some of the money will be used to pay for employees in jobs that already exist, not new jobs, and that in fact a lot of this money will not be taken advantage of because there will be no new jobs. In the final analysis there will be an everincreasing number of people unemployed, and we still will not have in place a major strategy for dealing with the chaos that confronts most of the economic sectors in the country. I really do believe that we are dealing with this in a very backward way.
The minister could have the bill passed and could get on with it if he could bring in some kind of economic strategy to show where we are going to create employment in the long term. I have not seen, heard or have any inkling as to when that is going to come or, for that matter, whether it is ever going to come. I suspect it is not. I do not think the government has the foggiest idea how to deal with it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain paints a picture of dark, Satanic mills closing down in the dark of night. I remind him that in the last year close to a quarter of a million jobs have been created in this country; 250,000 jobs have been created from May of last year to May of this year, so the picture is not quite as gloomy as he likes to paint it. It sounds great in the spoken word but, in fact, there still is a functioning economy in this country.
If he is worried about the application of this specific program, if we can somehow satisfy the weird obsessions of certain members of the opposition to satisfy their pedantic tastes and get the bill passed, then there is already a built-up demand for this program. Between April and May of this year we have signed, subject to the passage of the bill, close to 3,000 agreements with Canadian employers who are waiting for this bill to be passed and waiting for hon. members to come to grips with the fact that there are already major demands. They are waiting for the hon. member for Calgary West to overcome his academic convolutions and for us to pass this bill. The demand is there. He is worrying about how it is going to be used. I am telling him it is there. They want to use it. All we have to do is get on with the job.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Chairman, when I participated in this discussion on the last occasion I asked the minister if he would give some special consideration to ensuring that employers of only one person would be as eligible as the employer of thousands. I did not think I got an answer to that question and I would like to repeat it now. Will he give the assurance to the little guy that he will get the same break as General Motors?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I pointed out to the hon. member last time that 65 per cent of the jobs created under this program went to employers who employ less than 20 people. That suggests to me that if two-thirds of the jobs are created by employers who employ less than 20 people, it is not General Motors which is benefiting from this program. It is mainly the smaller businessmen in Canada.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that he did not answer my question today and that I did not get an answer the other night. He has given me more information this time than he gave me the last time, but the question still stands, and 1 raise it as a question of very major importance, particularly in the
June 11, 1980

province of New Brunswick or in any part of Atlantic Canada which is feeling the crunch of unemployment. The rate has not gone up as fast as it has in Ontario, but it has gone up and will continue to go up.
Let us bear in mind that Atlantic Canada is an area in which the rate usually goes up a little slower at the beginning, gets a little higher before the end and is much slower coming back down. I think that many of these programs have to be directed toward that kind of area. They have a special impact in that area where there are many small employers. So 1 will take the minister's assurance that the guy who wants one man will be able to get one man and will not have a rigmarole to go through to arrange it but will get help from the department and its staff, because this is one of the problems. The staff of the employment offices are very patient and helpful to those who want 20 people and whose records look good, but somebody who, for the first time, is looking for assistance to employ one man needs a great deal of attention.
I should also like to ask the minister if he has as yet any answers to give me to my question in respect of the guidelines which shall be applied to the make work programs, such as Young Canada Works and the Winter Works program. Will he give consideration to adjusting those guidelines so that communities, service clubs, etc., may be able to make contributions to the community rather than have some of the money spent in a fashion which the community sometimes resents when the community or the service club wants help? I sent the minister a letter containing three or four applications which I suggested should have had top priority consideration. They were rejected out of hand and 1 wonder, in view of the letter and the examples which I sent him, whether he has given that subject consideration, and can 1 get an answer to that today?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, we are tracking through old ground, but let me repeat to the hon. member the following. When it comes to guidelines for the work programs, we plan to reintroduce the constituency advisory system which was abolished by his government, by his caucus and by his members in the last Parliament. That constituency advisory system will allow the hon. member to recommend people from the community who will be able to exercise judgment based upon what is the most valuable project or program within the community. We intend to reintroduce that system to provide a check against the very conditions to which he referred.
The reason he ran into problems in the summer youth program is that his government cancelled that constituency advisory system and therefore there was no way of determining what the local priorities were. The way to try to restore it to some extent was to allow the individual member of Parliament to make the recommendations.
The hon. member has to understand that in his area he got a substantially high proportion of job projects, but he could not get them all because we have far more applications than we have money assigned to the program. There was $110 million assigned to the program to create 70,000 jobs across Canada.
Employment Tax Credit Act
They had to be allocated on some degree of equity throughout the width and breadth of this country, and therefore we could not satisfy all the hon. member's particular needs. I did undertake to the hon. member that if he has additional projects and would send them to me, if additional money comes forward because of the cancellation of some program, we would review them. But at the present time we have just received his letter. I would say that if I were allowed to spend less time in the House on this bill, 1 would have more time to apply to his problem.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of the minister's interjection in response to the debate in respect of the time which was being consumed. A point of order had been raised, and just in case it was not picked up by the electronic media which looks after us, let me point out that he made the interjection across to our chairman in the committee and said, "And you have all you are going to get." Apparently that is precisely the position in which I now find myself, that I have all that I am going to get.
My question to the minister was whether he would consider changing the regulations. I agree that the ministerial advisory board made a major contribution to the selection process, and I am not arguing that. However, neither the member, if he has input which 1 did not have, nor the ministerial advisory board can get around the regulations as they exist. I ask the minister whether he would inject into the regulations, by ministerial order or otherwise, or would he advise his staff that in the discretionary process of choosing which project shall be accepted the good be extended to the greatest number of people or to the community concerned, and that this should be the guideline on which moneys are awarded.
I submit that the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number is not prevailing in many instances. When boy scout groups or service clubs which need their premises improved are ruled out of order by virtue of a regulation, then 1 think something is left to be desired in the regulation. I am only asking that the minister consider this, give it his personal attention and understand the problems which the ministerial advisory board will face when it is appointed. The board cannot get by those regulations no matter what may be the personal wishes of the individuals or the board as a group. That has been their experience. I would like to see that regulation changed.
Will the minister take note of my question and give consideration to recommending to the staff that the greatest good to the greatest number of people, the community, the service club or whatever, shall be the guideline, not some of the ideological guidelines which now preclude items which communities need? 1 submit that all the projects that I submitted to the minister are items and projects which rendered great good to a lot of people for a long time. 1 think the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence would be particularly interested in two of them because they are church camps where young people have been entertained for some 25 to 40 years. They are in dire financial circumstances and need help. That is ongoing work supported by the churches, and the regulations precluded

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
them. I would like to see them made eligible. Is that too much to ask? Is that information I am not going to get either?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to defend the actions of past governments. If there were regulations-


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I did not mention criticism of the past government. He can throw that back as many times as he likes. These decisions were made through his office while he was minister and had nothing to do with decisions made earlier. What I am concerned about is the regulations.


Lloyd Axworthy: The program that we announced a week ago on Monday is a new program. There are no regulations for it. The hon. member may have some conspiratorial sense that somehow there is a hidden set of regulations. There are no regulations other than the guidelines which we have set to make the communities service program available to non-profit, voluntary community organizations to serve a work of genuine value in that community. We base our judgment of those upon the recommendations that come from the constituency advisory group. The problem which the hon. member faced in the past was that the system set up by the previous government did not allow any community input.


Fred Alward McCain: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: The decisions were made by the joint committee of federal and provincial civil servants and the recommendations came forward. We altered that to allow hon. members to have some say. We have now restored the constituency advisory group to provide an assessment of local community priorities. That is the determining factor. I have tried to tell hon. members that three or four times. I do not know how to emphasize it, underline or dramatize it any more. The choice on priorities will be for the advisory group that he will recommend and nominate.


Fred Alward McCain: May I take up a minute of your time, Mr. Chairman. The opposition has two choices in a case of this kind, and it is very difficult to decide which choice is the proper discharge of duty. One is to walk out and leave this bill and let the government pass it at any time that they choose because the opposition has been confronted with an absolute refusal to co-operate, to try to understand the questions which are asked, to try to understand the problems which are presented.
It is our job to try to represent our constituents. I spoke about a regulation. The minister has avoided his responsibility completely on that because it has nothing to do with the advisory board, nothing to do with members' influence. The only concern was the refusal or acceptance of those projects I forwarded to the minister. The fact is that they were eliminated by regulation by the staff of his department. I want that regulation changed so that the money spent in my constituency will be of long-term benefit to the greatest number of people. That is what we are here for; that is what I am trying to accomplish. I challenge the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence to say again that I am wasting my time, when I am trying to look after my constitutents and their long-term benefit. If I cannot achieve that, I am through.


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to speak on the extension of the employment tax credit program. I know that program well, having worked in a Canada Manpower Centre as an adviser, and I am in a position to tell you that it is a little gem, and it is so for several reasons.
First of all, when that project was created, the government tried to set up a program that could apply without adding to the pile of paper work an employer normally has to cope with when he operates under a government program.
It has always been said that, whether here or elsewhere at any level of government, there is always too much red tape, too many meetings with officials, too many all sorts of things. If some of my hon. colleagues ever worked with the tax credit program, the only paper the Canada Manpower Centre fills in is a yellow form that certifies the hiring of an employee, and the employer at the end of the year only has to send a form to Revenue Canada on which he puts the salary, and that is all. That is it and it is an incentive that people had a little difficulty with at first because there are two departments involved, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Employment and Immigration. At first there was a little lack of confidence between the officials of each department. In the third year of application, it was a phenomenal success. If the program is being extended today for another year, it is quite simply because it is a necessity.
I come from an area where the rate of unemployment varies regularly between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. We have a huge problem to live with, and that problem is all the more serious as it affects particularly young people. In an area like mine with multinational industries, most of those industries are unionized, the unions are very strong, and like any good union, they protect the seniority of their workers, and that is normal. But the result of all that is that those who have to suffer from the problem of unemployment are the young people.
I heard a while ago some colleagues criticize the existing job-creation program which this government launched in the early seventies, and all I can say is that I wonder, had we not spent that money to create so many jobs every year, year after year, how our young people could have kept their self-respect. Of course, the job-creation activity is not creating permanent jobs, but jobs to allow young people to subsist while the real work problems are being resolved. By the way, we have had such a large number of people coming out on the labour market, a number larger than any other country has seen, when women started to go out to work and when young people from the generation born during the years 1945 to 1960 started to appear on the labour market 15 years ago. There were too
June 11, 1980

many of those young people at the same time and the work they did was not really necessary. They were supported by temporary program like Canada Works, LIP or that kind of program assisted by an Unemployment Insurance Act which allowed them to live decently, with a sense of self-respect.
The ETCP is another program which aims at getting at the roots of the problem. This program can really promote job creation. An employer in my constituency is happy to receive a tax credit of $1.75 an hour when he hires a young worker, and generally, this young worker will stay with this business afterwards.
Farm workers can also benefit from the program. They are very happy about it. It is the nicest little program ever conceived because it can be applied easily. There is no need to hire ten accountants to be told what to do and what form must be filled in and sent back to the government. I therefore find it difficult to understand why the discussion has gone on for so long to extend this program for one year. It is easy to draw conclusions, but the gentlemen opposite, as our friends in Quebec often say, the hon. members on the other side should go and see in their own constituencies the people who have used this program. It is a real jewel. When you talk to them about a manpower training program, they will tell you: that is very nice, but we have to consult the province for a training program. However, you set up something when you were in power not so long ago and you knew that it would come to an end on March 31-


An hon. Member:: You were not there long!


Mr.   Gimai@: You knew that on March 31, 1980, the program would come to an end, and we also knew this, we who were working in manpower centres at the time. What we were asking from the lower echelons was that the program be extended for one year. This was not done. Now we are doing so. We should take care of this as soon as possible. I believe that there is a great potential of use in this program, and the minister will confirm that the funds allocated to the ETCP in the last two years were not sufficient because there always were more requests. This proves that this program is effective and will be increasingly so to the extent, first of all, that members of Parliament will publicize it in their ridings at the same time as the department and will tell their constituents about it because it is universal and applies to nearly everyone. This is one of the elements that the government conceived to fight the basic problem of unemployment which affects all the countries of the capitalistic or western world.
Over the past ten years Canada has given people billions and told them: "Think of ideas, we will give you money, do what you like". There is no other country in the world which did that and it proves that we are confident in the possibilities of the population, and that is why Mr. Pierre Trudeau was re-elected as Prime Minister of Canada during the last federal election. Besides proving that we have faith in the people this
Employment Tax Credit Act
constituted an opinion poll which we do not often have the chance to see because it is not one in which we ask people: "Are you for or against this issue?" It is an opinion poll which asks the individual what he thinks. We give money to someone who uses it however he sees fit. The results are fantastic. In my area, job-creation projects have worked wonders which can be used today for recreation purposes or others. Apart from this, there is also the fact that permanent institutions were created from temporary projects. And all this in the context of the same employment tax credit program. A little while ago, I heard someone ask who is going to create jobs. There is no one here on this side of the House who can claim to know the truth and to be able to create all the necessary jobs in Canada. No one. What we are saying is that within this country there are a good many people who have an incredible potential to create jobs and for the last 12 years we have been helping them. That is why Canada has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world as well as one of the lowest inflation rates. We will continue to do what we have done, to have faith in the population, in all Canadians. This is what is being done in my area and I am happy to encourage these people.
A little while ago, we were talking about a striking committee for job creation. That is essential. When we came to power and the previous government had decided, oh wonder, to put an end to the job-creation program, to suppress it, we wound up with the program pretty much in tatters; the striking committees had disappeared. We had to take all that in hand and rebuild. People ask me: Why a striking committee? Because these striking committees are comprised of key people who have ideas, know the local background, come from all parts of the region and from every corner of the riding; these people sit down and study ideas which are presented to them and invest money in them. It is simply a question of trusting the people. If you trust Canadians, Canadians will trust you. We know what we are talking about. We have been in power almost 20 years. That is essential. When you want to show someone you trust him you give him the opportunity of making it on his own. That is exactly what we are doing. We are not the fountain of truth. We will not force Canadians to work in areas they do not want to work or to do things they do not want to do, but we will help them hire other Canadians, if they want, and put their ideas in practice.
In conclusion I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the budget for the tax credit program, with which I became very familiar when I worked at the Canada Manpower Centre, will be increased over last year? I am aware of the fact that the program is being extended another year. Perhaps it should be extended even longer, but I wonder whether the program budget itself, and I realize these are hard times, can be increased.
2014

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. member for a very interesting and good address. It is nice to hear a positive contribution and one that has some relevance to the bill which is under debate. I would simply say that the budget amount which we announced when we introduced the bill is $98 million for this year, which is about the same amount we spent last year. We had hoped that the number of participants under the program would be in the same range of about 50,000.
The reason for keeping it at the same level is that it is simply an extension of the bill while we are reviewing the other programs. We have taken other moneys that were available for tax credits and put them into the-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Surely, the minister realizes that it is incorrect to talk about a budget. This is a tax credit, and it does not appear in the budget figures. It is not-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. If I understand the question of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, it was with regard to allocations for certain projects. Therefore, I think it is proper to talk about budget expenditures.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, this is getting to be humorous. The reason for continuing the program at the same level was because we wanted to shift the allocations that were under the estimates into the area of direct job creation.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments and ask the minister a couple of questions. Nobody has a monopoly on the concern, which we all must share in the crisis that we have, over unemployment and other related problems of the economy. I agree with the minister that there is not one simple solution to this serious problem. However, we on this side differ from this government in the approach. The former government attempted to create jobs of a more permanent nature. This government has gone back to the grand mentality which emerged in the early 1970s where it makes money available to keep people working for three or four months so that they can qualify for unemployment insurance. I realize, though, that there must be such a program, especially when the economy has been mismanaged as badly as it has, not only by Canada-but by other countries as well.
Has the minister or his department been involved in discussions with the provincial governments with regard to this whole area of manpower training? It is quite obvious to me, as it is to many Canadians today, that there is something fundamentally wrong with our primary and secondary education processes. We are keeping our young people in school far too long, and this has a twofold effect. When we keep young people in school for 13 years-I am talking particularly about young people who are motivated at the ages of 15, 16 or 17 toward some kind of a job skill-to prepare them for a career,
they are bored to death. This system provides nothing more than a babysitting service.
As a result, we are graduating from our schools today armies of young people with no job skills and who have lost all their motivation toward a certain trade skill. Because the education process has been disrupted, we have academic mediocrity as well. Is it not high time that the various governments get together and work out a program?
Indeed, the educational program in the province of Ontario provides for such a scheme in which young people are offered a training position in industry. They are offered the opportunity to leave school at grade nine or ten, find a place in industry- not at $9 per hour, but at $1.50 per hour because they are continuing to learn a trade and a skill. This learning experience within the industry would be supplemented with training, perhaps one day a week or one week a month, in one of the colleges or secondary schools in the country.
The minister will readily recognize that what I have described is the European system. There is a model of that system functioning in Ottawa right now, and the academic portion of it will run into September. The question is, have there been any discussions with the provinces to address this very fundamental problem, which will help to prepare us for the 1980s and, indeed, for the next century when we will need highly skilled people to work at highly technical jobs?
I would also like to know if there have been any discussions with the unions and the industries and whether these two groups are concerned about this problem. We cannot expect the federal government to find a solution to what is probably the most crucial problem facing our country today, particularly as it refers to youth unemployment. It is a problem which no single agency can solve by itself. It is a problem which requires the input of the federal government, the provincial governments, the industries and, of course, the workers' organizations, before an agreement can be reached.
Can the minister enlighten us as to whether he is concerned as well about these matters, whether there are any discussions going on and whether he has read some of the studies which have been produced by some of my colleagues, by educators in the country, and so on? What does the minister see for the future with regard to the combination of manpower training and job creation, which are two areas for which his department is responsible?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has put his finger on what is really one of the critical employment questions in this country, one that we hope to address by the establishment of the parliamentary committee which would be specifically looking at the issue of a critical need for skills in Canada and at a way in which we can supply them. In the meantime, I have met with the provincial ministers of employment and immigration and discussed this very topic.
We also discussed what we should be doing about the revision of the Adult Occupational Training Act. As the hon. member knows, we put over $800 million into that act. Many of the provincial ministers have indicated that they would like
June 11, 1980

to shift the emphasis in the program from institutional training to industrial training. I can also tell the hon. member that I have had very specific negotiations with the province of British Columbia through representatives of the minister of labour there concerning their new apprenticeship program. Our hopes are that out of the additional $10 million which will be put into the critical training skill program, some of the money could be used in the new apprenticeship program under discussion in British Columbia. There have been two meetings with the minister of labour of British Columbia and our officials are now meeting. I hope to have further discussions when 1 am out in British Columbia at the beginning of next week.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Chairman, 1 recognize that the minister is taking this question rather seriously and that he has had discussions with the provincial governments. The question is, has he had any discussions with industry? Whenever I advance this idea, the point is always raised that unions would not go along with it and that industry is not interested. From my experience as an industrialist and from talking to other industrialists, I find the contrary to be the truth. Industry is interested but they need the help and support of government to bring together a sort of tripartite approach which also involves labour and government. It does not matter how many institutions we build, skills and technology change so fast that we will always be behind the times. In the context of modern industrial development, only industry can train the people it requires. Of course, we need to back that up with some institutional training and schemes such as the one we are debating today for tax aid to industry for apprentice training and so on.
We also need to get the unions behind this. They would like to have two positions for every apprentice that is being trained, of course. Unfortunately, they have been very shortsighted about this. We politicians may talk forever but unless we bring the other two partners into the scheme nothing will be achieved.
Has the minister discussed this matter with his colleagues and are any discussions going on with labour and industry in regard to it?


Lloyd Axworthy: In the past month or so, Mr. Chairman, I have met with representatives of the aerospace industry, mining groups, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, automobile workers and the CLC to discuss the question of how to develop new training programs. Within the next week I shall meet with people in the oil resource industry. We have also met with the employers councils in British Columbia to discuss the matter.
We must try to develop a review of the kinds of financing to be used for training programs. The hon. member suggested that the levy grant system used in Europe, where there is a sharing of training costs among industrial groups be considered and I must tell him that we are setting up joint task forces composed of people from my department and from industrial areas.
Employment Tax Credit Act
One of the most useful blueprints for that came under the sector approach that the minister of state for economic development took 18 months ago when there was an examination of skill requirements industry by industry. Some fairly good information came out of that which is now being used as a basis for discussion and negotiation.
I intend to meet as many industry groups as I can to deal with the strange paradox of having 900,000 unemployed at the same time as a growing shortage of skilled labour. We must find a way of transferring those who are unemployed into the areas of demand which require high skills. That is what we are looking at right now.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I was rather shocked at the remarks of my very good friend, the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence. It did not sound like him at all, as he is normally so positive. I concluded that he must be suffering from some malady like the 'flu or the grippe or a little dose of western Canadian liberalism! Perhaps he is sitting a little too close to the minister. I hope that the attitude of the minister will not wash off on the member.
I have only observed this debate fairly briefly, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that the minister could get the bill through more rapidly if he were less chippy in his answers and more forthcoming. 1 also listened intently to the remarks of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. While I agree with some of his remarks, I find it rather odd that he seems to take the view that Canada is in a rather good position in terms of unemployment. He said that his area had 15 per cent unemployment, which I would think is totally unacceptable. I cannot believe that he accepts that. I think he said Canada had one of the best employment rates in the world. Unless I am wrong, France, West Germany, The Netherlands and even the United States have better rates than Canada. In other words, Canada has more unemployment than they have. I reckon the real Canadian unemployment rate is somewhere near 12.4 per cent.
I simply say that rate is not acceptable.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain was right when he said that this bill is rather short term or cosmetic in its approach and that we should look toward a long-term industrial strategy-which does not seem to be evident-and a guaranteed minimum annual income in this country. I wonder if the minister has examined the Humphrey-Hawkins proposal in the United States. They said they would not accept 12 per cent or 15 per cent unemployment but would set a rate of 3 per cent or 4 per cent and guarantee everybody a job. This is the most forward-looking legislation I have seen. I wonder if the minister has had a chance to look at that bill. Is he prepared to consider that kind of procedure?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, in the United States system there is a division of powers, which means that legislators can sometimes go on at great length and pass bills which the administration then does not implement. In the last statistics published, the unemployment rate in the United States in shown as being equal to ours. While the Humphrey-Hawkins bill has a very important objective, I would point out

June 11, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
that it is an objective which was set out in 1913 for the Liberals by Mackenzie King. So the Americans are 30 years behind us in this respect. They are experiencing the same kind of problems we have in living up to that because of the very turbulent economic conditions that exist.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Has the minister considered the possibility of framing some sort of long-term industrial strategy to implement the measures of Mackenzie King in 1913 to solve our present difficulties with unemployment. Has the minister considered moving in that direction?


Lloyd Axworthy: Not only have we considered it, Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of doing it. It is unfortunate that the hon. member has not participated in the debate sooner. He could have entered it at any time in the last three weeks.
We have established a parliamentary committee to develop exactly those kinds of proposals. We also have a task force working within government to examine the different conditions that are changing in the economy of the country and we are studying how government programs may best be utilized to solve that problem. Perhaps the hon. member should speak to his colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who will be a member of that committee and suggest these ideas to him, because those are the objectives of the committee.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Chairman, I thought the member was going to suggest that I speak to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and ask him about Mr. King and his plans. However, I want to add a couple of comments in what I hope is a positive spirit of debate, since I am urging the minister and the member from Eglinton to be positive. I think the member for Prince George-Peace River who last spoke brought up the point about the need for critical skills and for long-term skills. He also made reference to the apprenticeship program. Yesterday I flew from British Columbia with a gentleman who was president of a small corporation in Richmond, the Canadian Aircraft Products Ltd. Even though he was from Richmond, he deigned to sit with me! I heard a story that I have heard before. It concerned a fairly sophisticated corporation that makes aircraft parts and is looking for workers because they cannot get skilled workers. So what do they do? I hear a member say that we should blame it all on the unions. Let us not blame it all on them. If they have some part of the blame, then they should take it. But it seems to me that it goes further. It seems to go into the school system and into our attitudes and so on. We have too easily taken skilled labour from the old country. I know because my father came from the old country where they seem to get some kind of an education in skilled trades, and we are still relying on them.
I have heard the minister's reply and I will not ask him what he is going to do about it. I was happy that the question was put and that the reply was given, and I would second the need to encourage real jobs in terms of apprenticeship jobs.
I know the hon. member from Richmond will not believe this, but as a small employer in Richmond where I used to
have a business I took advantage of this program. I can tell the hon. member from Lac-Saint-Jean that. On one occasion when we hired a secretary, I suppose we did not need to take advantage of the program; but it was a good break in terms of money, although I think we would have hired the secretary anyway. On another occasion the program was useful because we were able to hire a woman who had been out of the labour force. She had had children and it was somewhat difficult for her to get back into the labour force. We took a chance on her and it worked wonderfully well in getting her back into the labour force. I tell the minister that the program was helpful and that is why we will ultimately support this bill.
Before I sit down I want to ask the minister one more question. It has to do with remarks made by my colleague the member from Regina East and concerns the native people.
If I could back up a little bit, I am not sure whether the minister noticed in today's question period-perhaps my friend from Lac-Saint-Jean did-when the member from Broadview-Greenwood asked a question in French about an industrial matter and the government minister from Windsor replied in French. This was done as a matter of course. I do not know whether many members noticed, I am a new member and I noticed. It occurred to me how far we have come in this country.
As I look across at my friends over there-the little coterie, I am tempted to say the poker game, but I know that comes later-it comes partly through their efforts, through sticking up for their language, their culture and demanding it. I congratulate them for that.
I allude to this because I am thinking about the question of the native people. At some point we have to make a similar type of commitment. We have to say that there is an injustice there and we must be prepared to make extraordinary commitments to native people in Canada. I find that the employment provisions in this bill-I think it is something like $10 million but I am sure the minister can correct me if I am wrong-are not really sufficient for native employment.
I have a letter here from the Kootenay Indian area council. This letter is in reference to work on the pipeline, the Alaska natural gas pipeline which is to come through their area. They are requesting that the Northern Native Development Corporation act as a vehicle through which people are hired so they can monitor it, protect their land sites and ensure that people are hired for a reasonable length of time and on a reasonable scale. Yet they never seem to get any help or commitments, either from the pipeline companies or from the northern pipeline agency. This is what they say in their letter:
Our request has been made clear on a number of occasions that the NNDC be given the contract for clearing, grubbing, grading and stockpiling on the pipeline to accommodate the employment of our people.
I saw this kind of employment in Alaska, in Copper Center, where native corporations take gravel and have contracts with the northern pipeline. I saw women workers in Alaska who belonged to the Teamsters Union. They were working on the trucks. Through the American civil rights act and through the affirmative action program they were working. The Americans
June 11, 1980

are way ahead of us here. Has the minister given any thought to these types of native programs for expanding the provisions in this bill to encourage further native employment and to consider the employment of native corporations on large projects, such as the pipeline?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that there is no provision in this bill for that particular aspect. We are debating the employment tax credit which has nothing to do with this particular issue.
However, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the additional $10 million that we put forward for native training opportunities is to be used for exactly those kinds of purposes. I have already held several discussions in western Canada with native organizations to establish how we can help them to create their own training programs run by the band councils or by their own corporations to take advantage of the resource projects. Those discussions are ongoing on a continuous basis both with me personally and with my officials.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I am not going to have time to go into the questions that I wanted to raise in detail, but I want to tell the minister that it seems to me unfortunate that the government opposite, ever since the time of Mackenzie King, appears to place great emphasis on programs, committees and all kinds of airy, fairy solutions that involve more bureaucracy, more handing back of the taxpayers' money to someone else, instead of tackling the real problems and coming up with the real solutions.
I would like to pursue a theme initiated by my friend from Prince George-Peace River. It relates to the importance of
Employment Tax Credit Act
developing real jobs in Canada, and in particular to recognizing the tremendous demand for skilled technical people which will materialize in Canada over the next decade. We have to recognize that the unemployment rate among the young people of this country, is almost twice the national average.
The minister should know that each oil sands plant, each heavy oil plant, each nuclear installation, each major coal project and each major pipeline project is going to employ thousands of people-at least in the tens of thousands in skilled and technical areas. In addition, as a portion of that complement, it is estimated that each oil sands plant will require over 3,000 engineers, that is, professional university-trained people. That figure does not even begin to include all the spin-off jobs related to all of the service industries that will be required in support of a massive national effort over the next ten years to make this country self-sufficient in energy.
In the professional areas we are going to need civil, electrical, and mechanical engineers, physicists, scientists, economists, and we do not have a program-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.

Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 12, 1980