1980-12-05

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last night the world received the tragic news of the death of the Prime Minister of Portugal, his minister of defence and other memben of their party in an aeroplane crash on the outskirts of Lisbon. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House expresses its sincere sympathy and condolences to the Assembly and the people of Portugal on the untimely and tragic death of their Prime Minister, Francisco Sa Carneiro, and of other leading members of the government of Portugal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On Wednesday, October 10, 1979, the House unanimously agreed to a motion by the hon. member for Windsor West, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, now the Minister of Justice and Minister of Trade for Social Development (Mr. Chretien),
that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs undertake an immediate review of interest rate policy. That review conducted by the Thirty-first Parliament was never completed.
In view of the fact there have been record increases in interest rates and rising interest rates have an adverse effect upon employment, business, especially small business, consumers and individuals in general, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House immediately order the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to undertake an immediate review of the interest rate policy of the government and of the Bank of Canada, and for this purpose the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance appear before it to explain their actions, and what they will be doing to solve the problems which the governor of the bank himself has said interest rates are now causing for individuals and for business.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pessing necessity. The savage and indiscriminate repression in Guatemala has been brought home to Canadians once again with the recent murder of Kai Yutah Clouds, an agricultural and community development worker in a CIDA-sponsored Canadian Friends Service Committee project in rural Guatemala. In view of the fact that even the lives of foreign aid workers engaged in non-political projects are no longer safe in Guatemala, I move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That this House call on the Canadian government to protest publicly the murder of Mr. Clouds and to pressure the military regime in Guatemala to take immediate action to see that justice is done in this case and to ensure the safety of field workers with Canadian non-governmental organizations still operating in Guatemala.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 5, 1980


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. There is growing concern among scientists that dioxin, one of the deadliest chemicals in the world, may be emitted into the environment, along with acid rain causing emissions, from the combustion process in coal-fired power plants. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That this House urges the ministers of the environment, energy, and health to launch immediately an interdepartmental investigation into all environmental and health hazards posed by the government's $175 million program to convert oil-fired electrical plants in Canada to coal; and that the House urges the government to proceed with its coal conversion program only after such an investigation has demonstrated that the program will not violate the environment nor will it threaten human health.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Of the total AHOP units 36 per cent will be coming off the program in 1981. In view of the number of units which were abandoned by home owners unable to meet their mortgage payments, the resulting losses to the government and neighbourhood real estate price disruption, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid):
That this House direct CMHC to carry out a complete study of the AHOP program in order to avoid the chaos of last spring and the obvious shortcomings of the program as a whole.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OIL-CALL FOR INCREASE IN PRICE PAID ALBERTA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would make a deal with Saudi Arabia through PetroCan to buy oil at $38 per barrel, and whereas this is one more nail in the coffin of free enterprise as Prime Minister Trudeau leads us on toward his objective, namely a socialistic state, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House urge the Prime Minister to pay Alberta-where the oil industry was built on, and operates on, free enterprise principles-75 per cent of the price he pays foreigners, which will make Canadians more prosperous, give Canadian jobs and be a giant step toward a united Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MULTICULTURALISM
[Stage Direction]
1981 CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas 1981 is a census year, and considering that professional academics in the area of sociology and population studies require valuable data for understanding our unique Canadian society, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) consult with scholars working in the area of ethnology in our universities to see that questions on multiculturalism are included in our 1981 census questionnaire so that information on our rich cultural diversity will be available.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, particularly to those Canadians interested in agriculture. In light of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy) has formed an exclusive and closed Liberal club of wine connoisseurs on Parliament Hill, and given that this Liberal club-even though they give lip service to Canadiani-zation-refuse to serve and supply the very fine wines of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
December 5, 1980

That this House instruct the Minister of Agriculture to live up to his total commitment to the Canadian wine industry by hosting the next meeting of this so-called elite club and serve only Canadian wines, so that his parliamentary secretary and colleagues might become more informed about the agriculture industry and the wine potential of our own country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Social Development and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that interest rates have again increased, with the prime rate now at 15.5 per cent, thus increasing the grim spectre of one million Canadians unemployed before the winter is out, in view of the fact that this comes in the face of indications from the government that it is seriously considering a cutback in social transfer payments to the provinces, and in view of the effect, which cannot be overemphasized, that such a monetary policy will have on the slow growth areas, particularly the Atlantic provinces, would the Prime Minister assure the House and the provinces that, until there is complete economic recovery in this country, there will be no cutback in transfer payments for social programs to the provinces?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who I believe will be here later, may I say we have not even begun negotiations yet with the provinces. We will have to await the beginning of those negotiations before we can give an answer to the hon. member.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my question was prompted by the budget of the Minister of Finance, in which it was indicated that in order to achieve savings in the area of social policy there would be cutbacks in the social policy envelope to "finance other initiatives in other envelopes". The Canadian Council on Social Development, whle appearing before the constitution committee yesterday, referred to this proposal as a smoking gun and expressed concern about the impact such a move would have on provincial planning to meet programs which are financed now jointly under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Oral Questions
Give the prospect of increased unemployment this winter, which is predicted to go to the figure of one million, can the Prime Minister give the poorer provinces and the unemployed of this country a categorical assurance that there will be no cutback or consideratio of a cutback in funding of the Canada Assistance Plan, at least in order to allow the provinces the opportunity to meet the increased welfare rolls which will be a direct result of the government's monetary policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in so far as the poor and the unemployed are concerned, I believe the minister has given that type of guarantee before. But what the hon. member is raising is a constitutional type of question which revolves around the desire of the provinces to exercise certain legislative authority but not to pay the bill. In this time of constitutional discussions and of sharing powers, we want to impress upon the provinces that if the wealthy ones are big enough to exercise certain powers, they should be big enough to pay the bill.
This, of course, does not apply to the less privileged provinces because they are compensated by equalization payments which will continue. The hon. member knows that these are the payments that we propose to guarantee in the constitutional project before the House, which the hon. member's party is so vigorously opposing.


CONTINGENCY PLANS TO MEET INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question will be directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would say to the Prime Minister, with the greatest respect, that we are not dealing with a constitutional question but with a bread and butter question. It involves the ability of Canadians to find work and the ability of the provinces to pay welfare payments because of increased unemployment.
The question which I pose to the Minister of Employment and Immigration is this. Given the prospect of one million unemployed this winter as a direct consequence of the monetary policy of the government, the prospect of increased interest rates with the spectre of shutdowns-for example, we already know that there will be a number of small retail operations forced to close their doors, which will mean additional people unemployed-what programs or contingency plans does the minister have, considering his responsibility, to meet this growing unemployment rate?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would look carefully at the budget presented by my colleague the Minister of Finance, he would notice that the major emphasis and priority of that budget was to stimulate the economy by putting the investment of this government into long-term economic development programs that would create long-term jobs for Canadians. That is quite in contrast to the budget presented by the government of which he was a member

December 5, 1980
Oral Questions
which, by its higher energy prices and its cutback in the deficit, would have created very severe unemployment in this country. So the whole emphasis and priority of this budget was to create major economic development initiatives, and I think that is the major priority of this government that he should support.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I will stay with the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Clark:: No one else will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Did someone say the minister of unemployment and outmigration? I do not know the minister can stand in this House day after day and heap such praise on Black Tuesday, October 28. In face of the fact that small businesses in this country will have to pay 17 per cent to 18 per cent to borrow money as of this morning, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business predicted on the CBC that there would be 50,000 bankruptcies of small businesses in the near future because of the economic policy of the October 28 budget.
Could the minister tell us whether he cares enough about the unemployed to go to the Minister of Finance and ask him, plead with him, argue with him, to reverse his interest rate policy, to reverse his energy policy-either or both-so that we can get some of those one million people back to work?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, I would simply remind him that my own commitment and the commitment of this government to helping the unemployed was very amply demonstrated when we reintroduced direct employment programs that had been cancelled by the previous government, particularly those designed to help people in the high unemployment regions. I do not think there has to be any further evidence or proof of the contrast or difference in our expenditure of money to help those most severely in need. That is the priority of this government.
I would also remind the hon. member that within that budget presented by my colleague were a number of measures, including one to develop the bonding system for small business that would provide some relief and for some alternative forms of financing for small businessmen.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, last June in this House the minister admitted that all he was creating was 7,000 man-years of employment. That is nothing to brag about in the face of one million unemployed. Since this government took office, in the first seven months 9,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing, 14,000 in construction, 20,000 in agriculture and 8,000 in transport. The labour force survey showed a 44 per cent increase in the number of people who said they were no longer looking for work because they believed there was none to be found.
In the face of those facts, if the minister will not go to the Minister of Finance to ask for a change in policy, can he at least go to him and ask for an increased budget to provide training to those people who have been forced out of the labour market, so that when and if we have an upturn they can get a job?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, again 1 would point out to the hon. member that he is rhyming off a number of facts which simply do not jibe with the statistics provided by Statistics Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is where they came from.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should like to continue if my hon. friend would hold his response or his enthusiasm. The fact of the matter is that within the first ten months of this year we created something like 170,000 jobs in this country. We have the highest growth rate of employment of any country in the industrialized world, much higher, I would point out, than the employment growth rate in the United Kingdom which is administred by an administration that follows the same economic principles as those of hon. members opposite.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. During the 1980 election campaign the Prime Minister made few promises, but one that he was categorical about was that the Liberal party "would keep interest rates down and would make sure that they go lower". Interest rates are having a devastating effect now on farmers, auto workers, small businessmen and fishermen, to name just a few sectors of the Canadian economy. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why he is not implementing his policy but instead is following the disastrous escalation of interest rates in the United States?
[DOT] (U25)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not quite certain what particular quote the hon. member is attributing to me, but I am certain that it was placed in the context-if it is accurate-of fighting inflation and following the kind of policy which the Minister of Finance introduced in his last budget. This policy is one of attempting, at the same time, to keep prices under control but not do it in such a way as to cause too severe unemployment and unnecessary hardship on the Canadian people.
December 5, 1980


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I am quoting from an interview which the Prime Minister gave during the election campaign as reported in the Toronto Star. In that interview he was categorical about his intent to have a lower interest rate policy for Canada. Considering the forecast which has just been made, for home owners alone this means that mortgages will go up by 50 per cent next year. This will not only have a devastating effect on those with mortgages, but will also depress the construction industry. Why does the Prime Minister not reverse current government policy and implement what he promised during the election campaign, namely an independent interest rate policy? When will the Prime Minister get off the disastrous American roller-coaster policy of high interest rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the formula introduced by the Minister of Finance is precisely that, an independent interest rate policy. It is set by the free market in Canada. It is not tied to an automatic index of United States interest rates.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that his phrase "free market" really means a continental market, meaning that interest rates here are being permitted, as a result of government policy, to follow American interest rates. In this context, why does the government, instead of boosting interest rates as a means to prop up the Canadian dollar, not allow the Canadian dollar to seek its own level? The consequence of that would be to encourage Canadians to buy Canadian produced goods instead of imported goods, leading to higher levels of employment next year rather than increased depression on which path the government is now taking us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must realize that to insulate Canada from what he calls the free market forces of continentalism would mean embarking Canada upon a policy of exchange controls and many other serious measures, which I do not believe even the hon. member's party would be prepared to contemplate at this time.


An hon. Member:: What about wage and price controls?


SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN OIL SUPPLIES
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This government and previous Liberal administrations have steadfastly avoided making a clear commitment to self-sufficiency in relation to purchases of offshore oil and the position to which this country is then exposed by these purchases of offshore oil. We have been advised today of another example of the inadequacy of this policy because the Mexicans have now called force majeure on the exportation of oil to Canada for December. Clearly a policy of oil self-sufficiency for Canada must be a top priority. We must aggressively
Oral Questions
pursue developing our own production within Canada so that we are not exposed to the decisions of these other countries.
Would the minister accept this as a paramount objective for the Government of Canada, and will he state clearly to the House that if other policy objectives interfere with this specific objective, he will ensure these other policies are amended?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have no problem at all answering yes to the hon. member. I refer him to "The National Energy Program" which was tabled at the same time as the budget. Very clear steps are indicated in that program as to how this country will achieve self-sufficiency. That will be achieved not only by increasing supply, but also by increasing conservation and substitution in this country.
[DOT] (U30)


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the minister accept that the policy of self-sufficiency is paramount, because there are many people in this country who believe there are other aspects which undermine the objective of self-sufficiency. I hope in future when the minister hears and has assessed these statements by others that he will make amendments to the policy, as he has just committed himself to do so to this House.
My supplementary question in relation to the Mexican oil contract is that a spokesman for Petro-Canada is reported to have said there will be no compensation for the cancellation of oil deliveries and no make-up deliveries in January or subsequent months for those deliveries not made in December. Will the minister confirm this? If it is so, will he take immediate steps to instruct Petro-Canada to renegotiate that contract so we are not left exposed to decisions on these offshore contracts which clearly leave us short of oil at a time when we need it most, the winter months of the year?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am surprised if my hon. friend has just discovered that this government is committed to achieving self-sufficiency by 1990. This is clearly set out in the National Energy Program which was released at the time of the budget. The programs we put forward in that announcement are quite clear and they will achieve that purpose.
With regard to the second point raised by the hon. member, I remind him that the measures taken by Mexico are taken under a force majeure clause which is in the contracts with all of their clients. Canada is not being affected in any different way from any other country. I might also tell my hon. friend that with regard to oil inventories in the country at the present time, the refiners are used to seeing their supplies sometimes reduced from various sources and having to find alternate sources of supply. There is no reason to believe that the present very temporary difficulty with Mexico, caused by bad weather and technical problems, will not be remedied in January and the situation then return to normal. I am advised there is no necessity for taking any exceptional steps at the present time.
5400

December 5, 1980
are of a temporary nature. The Mexicans have said that they expect that by January the situation will return to normal. The total impact on Canada is marginal in terms of our total supply. We have no reason to believe there will be difficulties this winter because of those steps. Obviously, as the hon. member indicated, if there was to be a very large conflagration in the Middle East, there would be a completely different situation in the world, the western world in particular, and we would have to face that situation.
I wish to advise the member that the Energy Supplies Allocation Board is working very actively and effectively. Again this week they came out with an announcement giving the highest priority to agricultural and fisheries products. The board is functioning normally and properly. If there is any emergency, Canada will be ready to face it.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister will recall that initially we contracted for 100,000 barrels a day from Mexico. We had that commitment from the Mexican government. It was reduced to 50,000 barrels a day by this government with its tail between its legs this spring. We now find it is going down to 25,000 barrels a day, or less. Since there has been a cancellation of deliveries, coming during the winter months-and the problem may well extend into the cold winter months-notwithstanding what the minister has said, can the minister give a categorical assurance, in view of the fact the oil companies are now scrambling to make up this shortfall, that there will be no shortage of supply in eastern Canada this winter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, unlike the difficulties that Canada faced this time last year when my hon. friend was minister of energy, I can give a clear, unequivocal assurance that there will be no shortage of heating oil in this country this winter.


Mr. Epp:: Ironclad?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister may have his black belt, but the minister can never see a belt without trying to hit below it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would like to ask the minister if he is serious about this situation, as the country is relying more and more on offshore oil under the policy of this government. We have the Iran-Iraq conflagration, the Mexican cutback and a number of other difficulties. Will the minister undertake to get together with the oil companies with respect to getting assurances from them that they will be able to pick up the shortfall, in the event that these very dangerous situations precipitate a shortage in this country? Notwithstanding that assurance, will the minister give us an undertaking that he will take steps to plan for the possibility of serious shortages this winter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I did not think my friend wore his belt that high. I regret if I hit him where he did not expect it!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: We have just discovered he is wearing suspenders!


An hon. Member:: Brace yourself!


Marc Lalonde: I come back to the serious part of the question that was raised. There is no difficulty or reason to expect any difficulty this winter because of the announcement from Mexico. Every indication is to the effect that those difficulties


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It relates directly to the announcement yesterday by the Bank of Canada that the prime lending rate would be 14.76 per cent and the announcement today that the prime rate of chartered banks would be 15.5 per cent, and how this relates to Canadian fishermen attempting to finance vessels and gear for the coming fisheries season. The minister will be aware that his colleagues in cabinet have given some assurance to small businesses that they will be given aid as a result of the exorbitant interest rates permitted by this government. The minister responsible for housing announced some programs which will hopefully increase housing starts. The minister of Indian affairs announced programs which will alleviate some of the problems caused by interest rates. The government has given some assurances through Imperial Oil and Chrysler that they will be protected in this society from high interest rates and the declining economy.
In view of the fact that many fishermen are tied to floating interest rates which are now reaching 17.5 per cent, is the minister prepared to announce any program which might protect Canada's fishermen from the exorbitant interest rates this government is allowing?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for putting on record the many good things this government has done.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's part of the deal.


Roméo LeBlanc: I wish the Leader of the Opposition would sometimes ask his own questions. In keeping with the policy of those who are in most need, we have already tendered assistance to Indian fishermen living on reserves who cannot under normal business transactions put up their homes as collateral. The minister of Indian affairs has already indicated some
December 5, 1980

assistance in that area. We are monitoring the situation. The figures I have so far do not indicate an unusual amount of repossessions. In fact, the financial institutions have indicated they are willing to roll over loans and extend credit until such time as the position of fishermen improves, which 1 am quite hopeful will be next season. There are cases of bad management on the part of individuals who have overextended themselves and therefore get into some trouble.


Edward Allan Miller: The credit I was giving to this government relates to ad hoc programs which would never be necessary if we were following a proper interest rate policy in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward Allan Miller: The minister is telling me he is willing to see fishermen of British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces mortgage their houses in order to make vessel payments. What is happening is that those fishermen are not only losing their homes but also their vessels. Why will the minister not get out and talk to these fishermen of British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces who will lose their vessels?
1 should also like to mention the bad management within the fishing industry as a result of the government's program of allowing larger and larger vessels into the industry. The minister indicated there will be a buy-back program for those people who will lose their vessels. Would he now announce for the benefit of the banks holding those mortgages and the fishermen who are about to lose their vessels when that buy-back program will come into effect so they may get out of the industry with some dignity?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, we have indicated that the buy-back provisions would not be a program which would be announced in a way which would cause an auction and thereby increase the price of fishing boats. In fact, the buy-back program will be undertaken in a normal commercial way and that is through brokers. In that sense, we will be ready in a matter of weeks to make some decisions.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister give us a progress report on the negotiations with the Quebec government on cleaning up the Ottawa River?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, we indicated to the minister of the environment for the province of Quebec that the government is anxious to see the project for the opening of the sewage treatment plant in the Outaouais region completed. To that end I have made submissions to the Treasury Board requesting that the com-
Oral Questions
mitment of the National Capital Commission increase to 50 per cent. Indeed, I have asked officials of the Quebec ministry to consider the community services commitment program allocation increase for that project so as to assist meeting the additional costs of the project, all of which, I would add, had nothing to do with the operation of the federal government or our earlier commitment, but rather has to do with the difficulties of the Quebec government and the delay it has experienced in getting the project under completion.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of National Defence, my question is directed to whoever is acting Minister of Supply and Services. The U.S. Senate has recommended that all F-18A deficiencies must be corrected and tested before a final decision on production of the fighter aircraft can be made. Thus, this delays that decision for two years. Is the minister still labouring under the delusion that Canada will begin taking delivery of this fighter aircraft in October 1982?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, the department is aware of those difficulties. At this stage there is no panic. Production problems such as the ones we have experienced are normal in the training period or trial period. In fact, that is why you have trial periods, so that you can identify the problems before production begins.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, most trial periods are not delayed suddenly by a two-year term.
Article 34(12) of the contract ties Canadian industrial benefits not to the number of planes we buy but to the number of planes the U.S. navy buys. It is common knowledge in Washington that the U.S. navy is reducing the number of planes from 1,366 to 1,044. According to the contract, this will mean that all Canadian industrial benefits will be reduced by a like amount.
In view of this and the other matters which could be brought up regarding the problems with this contract, can the government indicate whether it can renegotiate or cancel this contract and at what cost, bearing in mind we are already into the program for about $50 million and are budgeting for $250 million for next year?


Norman Kelly: Madam Speaker, the department is aware of all the nuances and subtleties of this particular program. It is monitoring it very closely and will make whatever adjustments are necessary.

December 5, 1980
Oral Questions


F-I8A FIGHTER AIRCRAFT-RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I take it, since the question to the member for Victoria was whether the contract can be negotiated, and the parliamentary secretary said the government will take whatever actions are necessary, that it is the view of the government of Canada that that arrangement can be negotiated. Will the parliamentary secretary or some responsible minister indicate whether the official view of the Government of Canada is that that arrangement can be renegotiated?


Norman Kelly: Madam Speaker, 1 do not have the information with which to answer the right hon. gentleman opposite. This question will be taken under advisement. The Leader of the Opposition may be assured of receiving the appropriate answer at the earliest possible time.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Francophone summit that was supposed to be held at Dakar having been cancelled, the minister stated that he was under the impression that France does not want an international Francophone community. This morning, according to the newspapers, the French embassy categorically denied the accusation. In those circumstances, does the minister still maintain his accusation or will he take this opportunity to retract it since according to France, it is unfounded?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, this is the second time the French government has put off the Dakar meeting. The same thing happened in November. I feel, therefore, that this is a very reasonable conclusion to arrive at in view of the activities of the French government.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the minister refuses categorically to answer my question. I asked, on the one hand, whether he maintains his accusation that France rejects the idea of an international Francophone community. On the other hand, I would add that a distinguished Canadian from Quebec, Mr. Ryan, is also of the opinion that there should be ministerial participation within the Canadian national representation. Seeing Mr. Ryan seems to have excellent chances of leading Quebec in the near future it might be interesting to hear the minister tell us whether or not he would be more receptive to a request from Mr. Ryan of Quebec, under the same circumstances, than he has been until now with the present government?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we agree with Mr. Ryan that Quebec must be associated with this conference and we made Quebec a generous offer to that end, but 1 indicated, which I repeat here, that France used Quebec as a pretext to delay the conference.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruee):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns his failure to bring in the legislation giving effect to the small business development bond provisions. Next Thursday an entire year will have passed since these bonds were first announced in the Crosbie budget and it is seven and a half months since the present Minister of Finance reintroduced them as a matter of policy. In view of the fact that farmers in particular have been waiting for confirming legislation, since many of them would have to incorporate their operations before they could take advantage of the small business development bonds, why does the minister not get this legislation before the House? Surely the minister realizes that the small business development bond issues are merely a trickle unless and until he brings in the legislation; and surely he realizes that the measure could be passed quickly since all parties agree that this measure in the Crosbie budget is a good one.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the delay in bringing forward the development bond is caused by the fact that it is part of the over-all income tax bill which has been put before the public in accordance with the request of many interested parties; the moment we bring in the income tax bill, the development bond will, of course, be part of it. I will give consideration to the proposal as to whether we could deal with the small business development bond immediately without debate, if that is what the hon. member is proposing.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of both the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Supply and Services, I would like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. It relates to the same subject to which the hon. member for Victoria alluded a few moments ago.
In the past couple of days we have learned that there are more very serious problems plaguing our new fighter aircraft.
December 5, 1980

Aside from the two unexplained test crashes, we now learn that there are flaws in the engine of the F-18, so serious that they will require the redesign of at least three vital parts and the restricted use of seven other parts. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what effect these problems will have on the Canadian procurement, which is already threatened with delay for a number of reasons, and can she tell this House more particularly what effect these developments will have on the Canadian contract price?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, perhaps when we discuss the contract price the question would be more properly directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. However, I would like to point out again that we are in a period of very intensive testing of pre-production models. Because it is a testing period, certain of these problems were already anticipated and, indeed, a certain time was allowed in the contract for these problems to be identified and corrected. Under the circumstances I do not think it is proper at this time to become too alarmed about certain reports which are coming from the United States and which, I might add, have not been confirmed by the U.S. navy.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems to be suggesting that they knew in advance that they were buying a bad aircraft. I would like to put aside for a moment the cost factors and the delay factors and turn to another subject. One of the selling points of which the government constantly reminds us when speaking of the great deal it made on the CF-18A is the industrial offsets package it negotiated.
My supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary relates to the fact that in the last few months McDonnell Douglas has laid off nearly 500 workers in Toronto. The reason given was that there were no orders for DC-9s or DC-10s. Given that done of the promised industrial benefits for 1980 was $83 million worth of work on DC-9s and DC-10s and a further $83 million in 1981, can the parliamentary secretary explain how she can expect McDonnell Douglas to fulfil its commitments in this area or, for that matter, in any other; or is this just another step in the boondoggle of Canadian defence procurement?


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, I think there are a few things to be remembered about this F-18 program. First, we are talking about an aircraft which is in the front end of technology. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the hon. member to say that we anticipated difficulties, as if to say we were automatically buying a bad aircraft. We are anticipating an aircraft which is far in advance of any technology we have had to date. Therefore, certain pre-production problems have to be encountered. That is the nature of technology in the future. Under these circumstances, we do not anticipate any particular problems with respect to the industrial benefits which have been written into the contract.
Oral Questions FINANCE


POLICY RESPECTING INFLATION AND INTEREST RATES
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which relates to the recent rise in interest rates. I am wondering if the minister is finally ready to recognize that it is his policy of increasing the federal share of the gross national product over the next two years and financing that increase through increased borrowings that drives up the expectations of inflation and interest rates and thereby leads to more inflation and higher interest rates. In other words, would the minister finally recognize that he is not, as he pretends, an innocent bystander waiting for somebody else to come along and drive the silver stake through Dracula's heart, but is in fact Bram Stoker, the author?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, one would have to be a poet and a prophet to answer that rather convoluted question, which was clothed in words indistinguishable from what I would call illiteracy.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, we have again from this minister today his Dr. Jeckyll mode of policy, looking for a place to "Hyde".
The figures to which my hon. colleague referred earlier indicate that we expect 50,000 business bankruptcies in the coming year. Figures which were released yesterday showed that knowledgeable experts expect a 25 per cent increase in personal bankruptcies in Ontario alone this year because of this government's policy of increasing inflation. Can the minister defend his policy of creating more work for lawyers and bankruptcy trustees by driving out of business small businesses which create work for people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question was based upon an assertion that we were increasing our share of the gross national product, and that the Government of Canada over the next number of years will add to inflation because we will be increasing our share of the gross national product. That, of course, is not true. If the hon. member looks at the forecasts and projections, he will find that over the period of the projection until the end of 1983-84 the share of the government in the economy will be precisely the same size as it has been in the past year. The hon. member's premise was quite erroneous and, as a result, all the verbiage following it merely decoration.


FEDERAL LANDS
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Public Works which concerns the federally-owned public lands at the corner of Woodroffe Avenue and Baseline road in the city of Nepean.

December 5, 1980
Oral Questions
As the minister knows, there was a proposal that those lands would be developed by CMHC and kept within the public domain. There are rumours and stories afoot that that is not so. Could the minister confirm what the position is now with respect to those lands, whether there are proposals being sought from developers and whether it is the intention of the government to ensure that at least some of those lands are kept within the public domain or for public use?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the objective of the corporation, together with the city of Nepean, is to ensure that housing of some type or other is developed on the site. However, it was because of the problems in working together and in realizing common objectives that time has elapsed, and the corporation now believes that in order to get housing, private sector involvement should be encouraged; and it is to that end that the corporation is working with the city officials. Some of the property is being held in abeyance for the possibility of public use. I refer, for example to public buildings for the public service in the Ottawa area.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The minister knows that there have been plans afoot in the Department of National Revenue for the development of a taxation data centre in the national capital as part of the ongoing program of that department to improve its service to the Canadian public, and that particular site at the corner of Woodroffe and Baseline is being considered. I am not asking whether a decision has been made-although if one has been made I could be told-but could the minister please tell us whether it is still within his consideration that that site is at least one of those being considered for the development of such a centre?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that that site is one of a number being considered by the department, it was the policy of this government to decentralize federal services, and we planned for seven of these centres all across the country from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
We do intend to set up such an operation in the Ottawa area at some location. It could be an extension of an existing building. My own preference would be for a completely new building, but I will await those recommendations. We are considering a number of sites, including that one. I must say that I have had representations from this side of the House as well, but I will take the hon. member's representation under advisement on behalf of his constituents, of whom I am one.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In the media recently there has been some uncertainty as to the stand of his department on the dumping of tailings in Alice Arm from a mining project there known as AMAX, American Metals Climax. Could the minister set the record straight so that we would know exactly what is the view of his department with respect ot the plans of that company to dump its tailings into Alice Arm?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I think the record is quite clear on this issue. The decision made in 1979 to go ahead with the project, or to allow the project to be planned, was reviewed at my request some five or six weeks ago. The review in fact indicated that there was no apparent reason for changing the original recommendation. There is a recognized problem there and that is why a minoriting operation will be put into place. In fact, we are looking at the possible composition of the monitoring agency. We want to make sure that there is public participation. That seems to be the procedure we will follow in the months to come before the operation of the time starts.


Donald W. Munro: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker, with respect to the consultations which the minister may or may not have had with his colleague across the aisle, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with respect to the misgivings that he might have had and the representations made to him by the Nishga tribe on this matter.


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have been in constant contact with my colleague on this issue. He and I agreed that the monitoring agency should have more than governmental people participating and that in fact there should be an invitation to the Nishga to be represented on the monitoring group. I have no further information on this issue now.
 * *


POINT OF ORDER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, during the question period today, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) misled the House by quarreling with my statistics. They are to be found in the document entitled Labour Force, put out by Statistics Canada, at page 15 in the October issue, which is comparable to another page in the March issue. I think the record should be corrected before we go much further in our deliberations.


Madam Speaker:: I must say that that is not a point of order.
December 5, 1980



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Trade)):: Madam Speaker, on Monday, December 1, 1980, concurrently with the adoption of Bills S-13 and S-14 at both the report and third reading stages, I had agreed to provide the House with certain documents which were to be tabled. Later that day, at 9.45 p.m., there was unanimous consent in the House for another procedure to be followed, namely, that these documents should be appended to Hansard on the day on which I would wish to put these documents before the House.
Madam Speaker, I am now ready to table these documents which are now available and to have them appended to Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: As requested by the hon. member for Rosemont, is there unanimous consent of the House for these documents to be appended to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For documents mentioned above, see Appendix.]


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties concerning the extension of a committee's mandate, and provided there will be no debate I would propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be empowered to investigate further and report on all aspects of acid rain;
That the evidence adduced by any subcommittee thereof on the aforementioned subject while considering the main estimates for 1980-81. be deemed to have been laid upon the Table and referred to the said committee;
That it be an instruction to the committee that it appoint a subcommittee to consider the aforementioned matter and that the subcommittee and members of the subcommittee have the power to adjourn from place to place inside Canada for a period of two weeks and to travel outside Canada for a period of one week and that the necessary staff accompany the subcommittee and members of the subcommittee; and-
That the committee shall report to the Flouse finally, no later than March 1. 1981.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to the motion of the hon. member?
Order Paper Questions


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said, there were consultations. I have referred the matter to the opposition critic on the environment, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). The motion which is before us is agreeable, and we are prepared to allow it to go through the House without debate.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Madam Speaker, there were such consultations and we agree.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 75, 943, 1,317, 1,444, 1,510, 1,576 and 1,700.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government consider it advisable to make the Post Office Department a Crown corporation and, if so (a) for what reason (b) in what way would the service improve?
2.	Would the same staff, unions, officials, etc., be involved as in the present postal system?
3.	Would making the department a Crown corporation make it more remote from parliamentary control?
4.	Does the government consider it essential that the Post Office Department be under the control of the elected representatives of the people of Canada?


David Michael Collenette: 1. Yes.
(a)	The government believes that a corporate structure will permit the post office to respond effectively to the environment of the marketplace in the planning and delivery of services and will permit direct management/ labour interaction on questions relating to postal operations.
(b)	Public service will be improved by the greater flexibility and business orientation of a corporate structure and through the direct management labour interaction referred to in (a) above.
2.	Yes, in so far as the government can anticipate the conversion from department to Crown corporation.

December 5, 1980
Order Paper Questions
3.	As a Crown corporation the Post Office remains accountable to Parliament through a responsible minister.
4.	The Post Office remains an instrument of government policy and as such is accountable to Parliament and cabinet.


Mr. MacKay: With reference to Statistics Canada's Employment Survey Development Project (ESDP), initiated in 1976 after the publication of articles by Wayne Cheveldayoff in The Globe and Mail, questioning the accuracy of the labour income and certain other components of GNP, what is (a) the present status of the project (b) its planned completion date (c) its costs to date, including manpower, office accommodation, etc. (d) its planned costs upon completion (e) its interim findings as to the accuracy of the labour income component of GNP (0 the effect of the resignation of its long-standing head, Mrs. M. Cottrell-Boyd?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports:
(a)	Present Status of Project
Presently the ESDP is in the process of developing and implementing the results of a field test conducted in January and February of 1980. Based upon an evaluation of this test, decisions have been made upon the final content, methodology and processing system to be used for the new survey.
(b)	Planned Completion Date
(d)	Planned costs upon completion
The budget for the 1980/81 fiscal year is approximately $1,560,000 and for 1981/82 the costs are $3,910,-
000.	An estimated	ESDP final cost is shown below.
1976/77 to 1979/80	$1,984,000
1980/81	$1,560,000
1981/82	$3,910,000


[Stage Direction]
The continuing budget for the survey, once it is in full operation, will be about $4,500,000 per year.
(e)	There are no interim data available yet from the survey which are sufficiently comprehensive to allow for an estimation. Furthermore, the objectives of the ESDP were not to produce or evaluate labour income estimates for GNP, but rather to produce earnings data, with greater timeliness, reduced respondent burden and at least equivalent quality as at present, for all sizes of firms in all sectors of the economy. The new employment, payrolls and hours survey will not estimate total labour income but only the wages and salaries portion of it. A comprehensive evaluation from the new employment, payrolls and hours survey will be available in 1982.
(f)	Departure of Project Manager
The intention is to begin the new survey of employment, payrolls and hours in April of 1981. The objective ot the early months of the survey will be a gradual build-up of the sample size, to a full complement of about 600,000 reporting unities, as a means of establishing a smooth running operational system. Coincidentally, it is intended to produce estimates from the new survey which can be used for comparisons with the estimates of the present surveys, resulting in linkage to existing data and preventing a discontinuity in the time series. During the latter part of 1981, it is planned to have the full sample in place, estimates produced and linkage of estimates between present and new surveys accomplished. The present surveys should terminate in March of 1982, when the new survey will become the official measure of employment, payrolls and hours.
(c)	Cost to Date
The Employment Survey Development Project began in April of 1976. The cost by fiscal year since that time up to and including the 1979/80 fiscal year are as follows: 1976/77	$	26,0001977/78	$	204,0001978/79	$	643,0001979/80	$	1,111,000$	1,984,000
A new manager for the ESDP has been appointed, and at no time was the project without a manager. Other than normal learning periods and minor changes in managerial style, the change in project manager is expected to have little impact.
Mr. Cossitt: Was the jurisdiction for Statistics Canada transferred to the Minister of Supply and Services and, if so, what is a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the transfer?


David Michael Collenette: The jurisdiction for Statistics Canada was transferred by order in council on Friday. June 13, 1980, from the Hon. Donald Johnston, President of the Treasury Board to the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais, Minister of Supply and Services. This transfer was done in the interest of improved efficiency and effectiveness of the government. The service orientation of the DSS is well suited to the fundamental purpose of Statistics Canada while in the previous instance there could be a potential or perceived conflict of interest between the minister's portfolio responsibility and Statistics Canada.
December 5, 1980


Mr. Crosby: 1.	How many prisoners were transferred to Dorchester Penitentiary, New Brunswick, in relation to the closing of the British Columbia Penitentiary and what is a breakdown of the prisoners transferred from the British Columbia Penitentiary to other maximum security institutions?
2.	In the case of prisoners transferred to Dorchester from British Columbia, what was the criminal offence for which each prisoner was imprisoned and what was the term of imprisonment in each case?
3.	In the case of prisoners transferred to Dorchester from British Columbia, how were the prisoners classified in terms of (a) security risk (b) danger to the institutional staff and public (c) other classifications that are applied to inmates of penal institutions?
4.	How many riots, hostage-taking incidents or other prison disturbances occurred at Dorchester Penitentiary between (a) July 10, 1978 and July 10, 1980 (b) the date of transfer of prisoners from British Columbia to Dorchester and July 10, 1980?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General: In so far as The Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1.	Three inmates have been transferred to Dorchester Penitentiary. One was directly transferred to Dorchester and the other two originally were transferred to Kent and Matsqui Institutions for a short interval. Breakdown of transfers from British Columbia Penitentiary to other maximum security
institutions:
Laval Institution (Quebec)	1
Archambault Institution (Quebec)	1
Regional Reception Centre (Quebec)	2
Regional Reception Centre (Ontario)	46
Millhaven Institution (Ontario)	2
Saskatchewan Penitentiary (Saskatchewan)	28
Regional Psychiatric Centre (B.C.)	22
Kent Institution (B.C.)	96
Total 198
2.	Criminal Offence	Term of Imprisonment
Inmate A-Robbery	3 years
Inmate B-Armed Robbery	5 years
Inmate C-Possession of Narcotics 5 years, 3 months
3.	(a) One inmate is classified as a minimum security
risk* and the other two are classified as maximum security risks.
(b) and (c) The classification in (a) applies also to (b) and (c). Inmates in federal institutions are classified under three broad categories:
maximum security (for example, inmates identified as high escape risks, hostage-takers, dangerous, violent, riotous); medium security (for example, inmates identified as not actively seeking to escape but who would do so if given the opportunity, not disruptive, nor usually overtly
Order Paper Questions violent but may demonstrate violence toward staff and inmates); minimum security (for example, inmates that can be trusted in an open setting, will not usually walk away, seen as presenting no danger to anyone, interested in work and/or other programs, require little custodial supervision).
4.	(a) From July 10, 1978 to July 10, 1980
4 Disturbances
2 Hostage-takings
1	Sit-in
(b) From date of transfer of prisoners to Dorchester
Penitentiary to July 10, 1980
2	Disturbances
1 Hostage-taking
I Sit-in
* Shortly afterwards, the inmate was transferred to Westmorland minimum security institution and is now on day parole.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many cheques in the amount of $200 representing deposits by candidates contesting the general election of February 18, 1980, did the Receiver General of Canada receive from the Chief Electoral Officer?
2.	How many of the cheques were returned to those who issued them and how many were retained by the Receiver General for various reasons?
3.	What was the total sum of money in the hands of the Receiver General at any time for the general election and was this money in any way invested and (a) if so, what was the rate and the amount of interest received (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1.
Fifteen hundred and one (1,501) cheques of $200 each representing deposits by candidates contesting the general election of February 18, 1980 were deposited to the credit of the Receiver General for Canada.
2.	None of the cheques were returned to those who issued them but refunds have been paid by the Receiver General to 651 candidates, leaving a balance of 850 cheques for which refunds will not be made.
3.	The total sum of money in the hands of the Receiver General at any time, pertaining to the deposits by candidates contesting the general election of February 18, 1980, was $300,200 of which $130,200 has been refunded. These funds then became part of the balances of the Receiver General, almost all of which are deposited in the chartered banks. Interest payments by the chartered banks on Receiver General deposits are 90 per cent of the interest rate on 90-day treasury bills on the weekly minimum balance in excess of $100 million.

December 5, 1980
Order Paper Questions
The exact amount of interest attributable to deposits returned to candidates contesting the general election is, however, unknown because the deposits were not separated from other moneys held in Receiver General bank accounts. An estimate of the interest earned on deposits returned to candidates, based on the average rate of return on Receiver General balances from January to September, 1980 of 7.57 per cent, was $4,696.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What is the status of the container terminal being developed at Fairview Cove in the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth?
2.	Has an operator been selected and, if so, what is the name of the operator?
3.	On what date is the new terminal scheduled to come on line and is any delay in meeting the schedule expected and, if so, what delay is anticipated?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Construction of wharf structure and land filling is completed. Contracts have been awarded and work is under way for the construction of the copewall, the crane foundations and the roro ramp and the installation of water, sewage, drainage and electrical systems.
2.	Yes, Ceres Stevedoring Company Limited.
3.	Not later than April 1, 1982. No delays are anticipated at present.
1980 PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION


Mr. Wenman: 1.	Did the government allocate money for the Emergency Planning display at the 1980 Pacific National Exhibition and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Were copies of the booklet "II Steps To Survival" handed out at the display and, if so, how many?


David Michael Collenette: 1. The portion of the Government of Canada display at the Pacific Exhibition used for emergency planning purposes cost $250.
2. Yes, an estimated 1,500 copies.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, 1 do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 4, consideration in committee of Bill C-47, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Under the provisions of the order passed on Tuesday, April 29, Committee of the Whole will proceed today and next Monday with the consideration of the estimates under the item Employment and Immigration of the schedule to Bill C-47, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION:
Vote No. 1


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but the minister was detained. He is about to come in. If he does not come in immediately, perhaps we might wait until his officials come in.


Denis Éthier: I see the minister arriving now. [Translation]
Before the hon. minister entered the House, vote No. 1 had been called. Shall vote No. 1 carry?

Shall Vote 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Is the minister not going to address some remarks on vote 1 ?


Denis Éthier: I called vote 1 twice and I heard "carried" on each occasion. I see the parliamentary secretary rising now, perhaps for an explanation.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, 1 thought you were going to wait until the minister was here to call vote 1. When you do so, the minister will stand up. Will you be so kind as to call vote 1 immediately?


Denis Éthier: I will call it again. The minister was in his seat when I called vote 1. Shall vote 1 carry?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He does not hear very well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this unexpected opportunity to talk about the work and activities of the commission on employment and immigration and on the status of women. Also I welcome the opportunity to listen to the questions asked by members of the House, and to their comments. There is a tendency in the day to day affairs of my department for people to seize upon the more sensational
December 5, 1980

aspects of some of its activities, such as an immigration case which all of a sudden bursts forth in the headlines, and at the same time to ignore the large range and volume of work on a daily basis.
While 1 am quite anxious to deal with the specific and ad hoc questions and inquiries of hon. members, I hope we can devote some time during the discussion of these estimates to look at some of the longer term questions faced by the department, because it is a crucial department in terms of the economic and social policies which we will be facing in the 1980s.
Fundamentally, in my portfolios I deal with the problems of people, particularly the more effective and useful management of the human resources of the country, to ensure that not only is there an effective use of people in terms of jobs, training and skills, but also that there is a fair and equal use of people so that those who are suffering disadvantages can be assisted in trying to overcome their disadvantages.
I think members of the Elouse will recognize that there is no more difficult a task, because we are dealing with people, and people cannot be ordered around in the same way as aeroplanes, bridges, or other more solid objects. People have their own mixtures of reasons why they want to live where they do, or work where they do. At the same time we are faced with very important problems of managing in relation to other groups and sectors of the economy. Our work is very closely tied in with the work of the business and labour sectors of Canada and also with the work of provincial governments. Yet, to mix and match those particular segments, one realizes that changes do not come easily. They must come with some degree of agreement and acceptance on the part of all the actors in the play. I use the word "play" with some degree of reservation, considering the events of the past week. Nevertheless. the federal government must play a very important leadership role in providing direction in the critical areas of helping people to get jobs, to move to this country, and to achieve some degree of equality in what they do.
It is particularly important, in light of the changes which can be seen on the horizon as taking place in the 1980s, to note that there will be some very important changes in the labour market conditions of Canada, ones which will require alterations in the programs of our government, provincial governments, and the private sector. That is why we undertook, as one of our first initiatives upon returning to government, to establish some very serious reviews of labour market conditions.
I just want to emphasize that we look forward, with some anticipation, to the findings of the parliamentary task force established to look into the critical question of employment needs for the 1980s. Much of the deliberations of our department will be dependent upon the assessments made by members of the House in coming to grips with some of those very critical issues. At the same time we have undertaken certain studies, within our own commissions, on the unemployment insurance program, on labour market forecasting, and on immigration programs, as ways to develop new data and ideas
Supply
about where we should be going in response to these changing conditions.
If I may, I should like to mention just a few of those. One of the most important changes we are facing is a substantial change in the labour market itself. One of the most serious issues faced by both the public and private sectors over the decades of the sixties and seventies was a very large increase in the numbers of young people coming into the labour market. We faced probably the largest growth of young people coming into the work force of any country in the industrialized world. Over the period of the decade of the seventies we were able to maintain the highest growth of employment of any industrialized country. While no one can be totally satisfied that we are able to provide jobs for everybody, certainly our record speaks for itself in being able to respond to that issue.
Beginning in the 1980s there will be a gradual decline in the number of young people coming into the market. In fact, that is beginning now. At the same time there will be an increasing demand for new skills, trades, and crafts. So, we will be facing a paradox in the labour market that we could, in some ways, even reach the point of shortages by the mid-1980s. I believe very firmly that it is the responsibility of the government not just to respond to the short-term crises but to put in place the program elements which will enable us to respond to longer-term issues.
At the same time we will be facing a major shift in industrial activity in Canada, both between industries and between regions. That is simply a reality at which we must look. We are all aware of the shifting focus of economic growth and activity in western Canada and the increasing concentration of work within the resource and resource construction areas. That has created the paradox in the country that, while there are still large concentrations and pockets of unemployed in areas where unemployment has been traditionally located, there are increasing demands for and shortages of skills in other areas of the country. Therefore, one of the primary requirements of the government is to ensure that there can be substantial mobility of the work force and the acquisition of new skills to respond to the changing conditions of the marketplace.
That is why the government places such a very high priority, within the charter of rights in the constitutional debate, upon the establishment of mobility rights. It is to ensure that Canadians have the right to choose where they want to work and live. The increasing evolution of provincial barriers to the free movement of labour in the country is clear to us.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order to help the minister out. I am just wondering whether he is aware of the testimony of the Council on Social Development before the constitutional committee yesterday in which it was indicated that the clause on mobility in fact would provide the legal basis to close the borders and create sovereign states.


Some hon. Members:: You will have your turn.


Denis Éthier: Order, please.

December 5, 1980
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I understand the high degree of anxiety and agitation of the hon. member, because he has been in that state for about two months. But I hope he can restrain himself and allow some proper flowing discussion to take place.


Mr. Forrestall:: You might take a lesson from your colleague and watch your temper.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now 1 am receiving gratuitous lessons from members opposite on temperament. I would suggest, by the tone of the hon. member's voice, that he might follow his own advice.


J. Michael Forrestall: You watch your own temper.


Lloyd Axworthy: Therefore, what we are trying to look at, in terms of changing conditions in the marketplace, is how we put in place the kinds of programs and policies which will respond to the shift both in the occupational structure of Canada and in the regional shift of industries. On one hand that means responding to areas or industries experiencing decline, at the same time as responding to areas experiencing high rates of growth.
It is also critical, in looking at future conditions, to ensure a fair degree of equity in the job market. This means looking at the groups of people in society who have been excluded or denied access to jobs in proportion to the numbers of the population or to their simple rights as Canadians. The most obvious group, which is a majority, is the women in Canada who, over a period of generations, have been concentrated in a very few occupations which tend to be on the lower scale of pay and opportunity. That is why the government, as was announced in the Speech from the Throne, put such a very high priority on developing an effective employment strategy to deal with the problems of women and to begin developing new initiatives to provide incentives for the private sector, as well as to take actions within the public service to establish principles of affirmative action. In this way we hope to provide some sense of leadership to redress the imbalances in the continuing area of discrimination.
It is fortunate I have the double portfolio of employment and immigration. This gives me the ability to focus on the status of women. It gives us the ability to provide some influence and direction within the government to reach solutions in that area.
Another issue which has caused a great deal of concern and public discussion in recent months has been the shortage of skills in Canada. It is a symptom of major changes which are going on in the workplace. For a long period of time Canadian industry has relied upon immigration as a source of its major skills. Studies in both British Columbia and Ontario have indicated the majority of their skilled tradesmen have come from countries offshore. Unfortunately that work source is now aging and they will soon be eligible for retirement. As a result, we are put in a position where we will be short a
number of important skills. It will not be possible to rely upon the immigration of skills from other countries to the same degree as we have in the past.
We are now very much in an international labour market where there is a high degree of competition from all kinds of countries. In areas where there used to be a fairly ample supply of people with basic craft and trade skills, they now find themselves in severe competition in gaining skills for themselves. As a result, that traditional source is now coming home to industry. They are recognizing the need to gear-up substantial new efforts in the area of skill training.
With respect to this area, Mr. Chairman, our department is trying to assist them in as many ways as it can. We have in our estimates well over $800 million allocated to a wide variety of training programs. This will provide training places both in industry and institutions for well over 300,000 Canadians. At the same time we recognize that is not enough and that we will have to develop additional incentives. That is one of the reasons we look forward to the proposals coming from the task force of Parliament and from our own studies and reviews.
1 would like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a topic on which one can simply point to a victim or an aggressor. We are all responsible for being caught short, which is simply a problem which must be solved. A good deal of my time over the last several months has been taken up in meetings with representatives of business and labour to see how we can develop joint efforts and responses to this serious need.
The area of unemployment insurance is a critical one where we must re-examine our proposals. Unemployment insurance has been the fundamental foundation of job security for Canadians since 1940. Since that time it has gone through a wide variety of changes. What we see now is that the expenditures on unemployment insurance should be reviewed from the point of view of determining to what degree it provides security and to what degree it provides disincentives to work. We must look at whether it provides a fair allocation of the cost of the program and at the degree to which the unemployment insurance program can provide additional services to enable additional people to come into the work force. These are people we will need. As part of this review, that is why we are taking a very careful look at issues such as improved maternity benefits and benefits which would allow women to come into the work force.
We are also involved in the examination of new programs and policies in the area of adjusting to industrial decline. Members of this House will recognize this in the budget of the Minister of Finance. In that budget there was an allocation of $350 million aimed at the problem of industrial adjustment. Our department has been working in conjunction with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Labour, and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to develop responses, using those funds, to zero in on industry and areas directly affected by industrial change. This is done primarily to provide stimulation for new alternative economic development as well as to provide ways in which
December 5, 1980

workers in those areas can be continuously employed, either in those industries or alternative ones. It is my hope we will be able to announce, within three or four weeks, an outline of that program.
Before I conclude my brief overview of some of the initiatives taken by the department I would like to highlight something which often does not get much attention in debates in this House. I think it is important to comment on it. The basic conventional services of the employment and immigration commission are to provide major job placements for Canadians across Canada. This goes back to the point about the requirement for ensuring mobility, to ensure that people have full information about where jobs are and how they can go about getting them. We have an extensive network of employment offices spread across the country which provide a high volume of registrations and placements. What we recognize is the need to make those basic services even more efficient than they are.
In the last year we introduced a program of computerization to ensure that within an urban area, such as Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto, there is a computer system which would provide for the instantaneous transfer of job placements and vacancies so that workers in those areas can instantly respond to it.
About a month ago we announced the initiation of a major national job bank which computerizes job placements and vacancies right across Canada. It is a program which has already been greeted responsively by workers and employers. It is our intention to continue to make those basic services more efficient and more effective. That is one way we can assist in the transfer and transition of people who want to change jobs, who find themselves out of work and move to new employment. I would be very interested if members of this House would like further information with regard to this area because it is one of the fundamental and important services which we provide to Canadians.
Finally, I would like to speak for a moment about immigration and refugees. There was a major change in the Immigration Act which was passed in this House. That change began to take full effect in 1978. We are now beginning to see the changes in the composition and pattern in immigration which were caused by the alteration which went with that legislation. One of the requirements we have is to provide an annual immigration level to Parliament. I am pleased to report that this year the immigration level has been greeted with a high degree of consensus and support by both provincial governments and the public. This is partly due to the extensive consultation which has taken place.
I would like to highlight one particular problem which bothers me a great deal as I look at it with respect to the responsibility of immigration. That is the problem of refugees. We have just been through one of the most heart-warming experiences as, Canadians, as the sixty thousandth Vietnamese refugee landed in Montreal under the special program. I think it is an event worth noting because of its significance, in the sense that it was probably the largest effort for a country of this size to resettle such a cohesive group of people in such a short time. We must not overlook the fact that with that major
Supply
influx of Vietnamese refugees, substantial requirements will be necessary to ensure they become properly integrated into our communities, that they have the ability and the opportunity to obtain full employment and to get language training so that they will fit into the communities and neighbourhoods in which they have located with a minimum amount of fuss and dislocation. That is part of the emphasis put forward in the immigration paper. We would like to spend the next year or so putting primary emphasis on the integration and development of services for the large number of refugees who have come to this country over the past two years.
I would also remind hon. members that these plans will not cure the refugee problem. If there is any major worldwide occurrence which should be addressed, it is the accelerating numbers of displaced people and refugees throughout the world. It is occurring in southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and, in fact, there is not an area in the world where there is not a refugee problem.
It is my concern that we begin to focus as a country and a Parliament on the international dimensions of the refugee question. I would hope that the debate and discussion during this consideration of the estimates will give us an opportunity to look at what we might be doing in response to one of the most burning and critical issues faced by this country because of its privileged position as an affluent and comfortable place to live.
There are many people asking us questions because of our past leadership.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks in about two minutes. One of the final requirements of putting into place this variety of initiatives is that it must be done in combination and co-operation with other people, other levels of government, labour, and business. We cannot respond to the series of problems of skills, new job creation, movement of people and the development of new economic opportunity without a major effort to bring the different sectors of our country together. Certainly it will be the next phase of our approach, once we receive the reports of Parliament and of our own studies, to undertake major meetings across Canada with those sectors in order to develop a consensus or agreement upon the direction which we should take to put people to work in Canada and to assure that the right of Canadians to choose where they want to work is defended and guarded. With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I welcome debate and discussion in this committee.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to discuss matters listed under the minister's estimates with the

December 5, 1980
Supply
minister and his officials. Prior to my remarks, which are fairly specific to my area of interest, I would like to touch on what the minister said about the immigration of refugees to Canada. The problem in rural and semi-rural areas in that very well meaning civic groups and churches have brought refugees into Canada under the program only to find that, after these refugees have arrived into their communities and are given training in language, employment opportunities and so on, they, perhaps because they feel more comfortable in metropolitan areas or because of the cultural shock, want to migrate to metropolitan areas.
I myself am involved in a situation where a group of refugees wishes to migrate to the United States. I am having some difficulty in deciding what I should do or what the church groups should do to assist in helping these people, once they have arrived in Canada and spent the money allotted, to emigrate to the United States. If the minister would address that problem, it would be helpful.
The rest of my remarks will be a little more partisan. At first I was tempted to begin with the massive inconsistencies which can be found in the minister's treatment of hockey players who, for example, may want to play for the Quebec Nordiques and of men and women who have another vocation which they want to practise in Ontario. We would like to discourage discrimination against Ontario. We appreciate that it is a policy of the government which is sometimes aided, sometimes abetted, but most of the time watched helplessly by the Liberal members. But after I read the remarks of Laura Sabia in the Toronto Sun, I felt it would be impossible for me to do any better.


Lloyd Axworthy: Is she your new source of information?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The high unemployment rate in Canada is a result of a lack of concern by the government, and it is affecting every geographic area in the country. It is having an effect on my area as well as other areas, all occupations and age categories.
During the course of my remarks I want to touch specifically on the employment problems in the construction industry. As the result of the government's policies we are concerned for the training of young people in the construction trades. I also have one or two local concerns with regard to my riding of Simcoe North which 1 will address to the minister.
With regard to housing starts, I spent some time last night reading the remarks of the minister when he was on this side of the House criticizing our efforts to stimulate the housing industry. I felt that many of his remarks were very disparaging, and when I looked at today's record I was embarrassed for the minister. The minister has the problem of standing in this House and coping with the inability of another minister to rectify the situation. In 1980 housing starts will fall short of the 1979 figure by either 37,000, if one takes CMHC figures, or 47,000 if one takes HUD AC figures. I read the comments the minister made last fall, which were very disparaging about the starts last fall being less than the year before.
CMHC said that we needed 266,000 starts this year, and we are running at an annual adjusted figure of only 160,000 starts. In 1979, the year the minister was on this side of the House and the year in which he was so disparaging in his remarks toward the then government, the starts were down 13.5 per cent from 1978. That drop in housing starts, whether one takes the figure of 37,000 or the figure of 47,000, equates to approximately 50,000 new jobs, I know that there are different methods for computing that equation, but for the purposes of what we are talking about today, we can say 50,000 jobs will be lost in the construction industry as a result of the lack of action by the government.
These lost jobs will result in a drain on the unemployment insurance reserve and the paying out of benefits of approximately S213 million if one bases it on 38 weeks of benefits. The minister of housing is on record on several occasions as stating that MURBs will dramatically increase employment in the housing industry because there will be MURBs all over the place. He has also suggested that co-op housing will increase by 10,000 units.
On the other hand, a representative for CHMC in Toronto said yesterday that no applications have been received recently from private developers for rental projects. So on the one hand we have a suggested policy which will sprout up housing in the form of multiple urban starts, and on the other hand we have an official of the department saying that there are no starts. The official went on to say that the rental situation will get worse, which means unemployment in that very basic industry.
There are no prospects on the horizon for a dramatic increase in housing starts, and that means unemployment. What will the government do with these skilled unemployed construction workers who want to work but, as a result of a downturn in residential construction in this country, are continuously forced to leave the industry? At the same time the inventory of unsold, single family dwellings is depleting. Hopefully this will result in an increase in residential housing starts, but this will be offset because of the way in which the government has allowed mortgage interest rates to rise. We have a paradise with, on the one hand, skilled labour leaving the industry due to lack of demand and, on the other hand, people crying for accommodation.
I will run through my questions and then ask the minister to reply, if I may, Mr. Chairman. How does the minister intend to address the problem of putting skilled and unskilled workers in the construction industry to work when the minister who is responsible for housing is obviously unable to come up with any program to stimulate the industry, especially the multiple dwelling aspect of it?
Training programs are pretty important to young Canadians who are out of work, Mr. Chairman. The Canada Manpower office in the riding of Simcoe North has advised me that 314 people are registered in the Orillia office and 346 are registered with the Midland office, in the construction industry. It is ironic that at the time when we have a 2.3 vacancy rate, a
December 5, 1980

new record, 660 people in my riding are looking for work in the housing construction field. That is just one riding, Mr. Chairman. At the same time the experts predict a labour shortage. But, Mr. Chairman, these people are unemployed and they want to work.
I would suggest to the minister that now is the time to implement a program to train or retrain workers who are presently unemployed in the construction industry so that if we ever reach a point where we have a comprehensive policy in place, then the skilled labour will be available. Does the minister feel that we should be training these people to get out of the construction industry, or retraining them, or upgrading their training so that the skilled labour will be available when the industry does recover?
I would point out to the minister that the type of housing constructed in Canada at the present time has undergone a change. It used to be that we built 30, 40, 500, 100-home subdivisions, all the same models. That meant 100 holes in the ground and 100 buildings went up. I think the minister will agree that information from the housing industry indicates that there is going to be a shift in emphasis. People cannot afford to buy a new home, or to change houses in order to upgrade their housing. Because of the mortgage interest rate policy of this government, they are staying in their homes. What they want to do is to renovate. They want to renovate and upgrade the homes in which they presently live.
I suggest to the minister that there is going to be a greater demand for skilled construction labour that can renovate homes. We are going to need plumbers who can do renovation plumbing, not just plumbing for a new building, that can be put wherever they want, or wherever the plans show it should go. I would ask the minister to address this problem of how people can be retrained to handle the renovation industry.
I should like now to deal with some local problems in the riding of Simcoe North. For some strange reason there are two economic regional boundaries in Simcoe North for the purpose of Unemployment Insurance Commission payments. Region 'C\ the Toronto area, includes the townships of Rama and Mara which are on the easterly side of Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching in Simcoe county. The balance of the riding is in Region 'H', known as the Georgian Bay area.
The Toronto area has a lower unemployment rate than the Georgian Bay area, which is essentially rural and tourist oriented. Rural people must work longer than people in the remainder of the riding in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. They are therefore at a disadvantage when it comes to the legitimate collection of unemployment insurance benefits. I do not think it should be assumed that unemployment opportunities in these two townships are greater than in the rest of the riding; they do not relate in any way to the Toronto area. The people of the townships work and shop in Orillia and their attachment is to the community of Orillia rather than Toronto. I would ask the minister to investigate whether the two townships of Rama and Mara could be transferred to Region 'H'. 1 bring this question up, Mr. Chairman, because I have often found that local problems
Supply
can be expanded and the solution can sometimes be applied nationally.
The village of Warminster is 29 miles from Barrie, but the people of the village must use the unemployment insurance office in Barrie. In Toronto, people can get on a bus and go to one office or another, but these people have to go 29 miles in order to find the same service. I would ask the minister to see if this situation can be corrected.
The last local problem that I should like to deal with pertains to grants under the Canada Community Development Program. I want to congratulate the minister on this as I think it provides for a very good review by local people. The lady in the Barrie office was most helpful to me and I have had an opportunity to review the programs. An application was made by the town of Midland for a grant to improve its harbour facilities. As the member of Parliament for Simcoe North, I endorsed this project with the caveat that I wanted to be fully satisfied that whatever moneys were spent under the program were used for the development of skills of young people who would otherwise be drawing unemployment insurance benefits during the winter. The program was not approved. It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that the young people in Midland want to work and that they should be trained. While I agree with a lot of the other grants that were given, I am disappointed that this one was not approved. I hope that more emphasis can be given in the future to programs which are endorsed by the member of Parliament with perhaps a proviso that they be changed to meet the terms of the grant.


Lloyd Axworthy: Give me the name of the project.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I can get the number of the project and the name for the minister.
I should now like to refer to a brief presented to the government by the Canadian Executive Board, Building and Construction Trades Department, which I am sure he has reviewed. In his remarks he referred to mobility in the construction industry. I think we all agree that this particularly applies to the construction industry because, by their very nature, construction projects do not always offer continuing employment. I think now of some of the large projects which draw people from all over Canada.
The brief asks the government to amend the income Tax Act to provide that all reasonable allowances paid by an employer to a worker for room and board and or any type of transportation be non-taxable. From my experience in the days when I used to do income tax returns I know that some construction workers have to travel a fair distance and that it sometimes means uprooting their families for months at a time. Other times it may mean that they have to drive 70 or 80 miles one way, or perhaps 100 miles round trip, to a particular job. We are faced with a problem here. Do we have these people sitting at home saying "I am unemployed. I cannot find a job in my area"? Or do we decide that it is better use of our manpower in Canada to grant an allowance to a worker to go far enough to work?

December 5, 1980
Supply
There are some matters in this brief the minister should address which include things in the construction industry. While I am talking about the construction industry, I share the concern of the Canadian Construction Association regarding changes contemplated to reduce the minimum insurability level from 20 hours of work per week, or 30 per cent of the maximum insurable earnings, to 15 hours of work per week. 1 am sure the minister and many members of this House at one time or another held a part time job, whether or not it was while going to school. 1 know the minister realizes there has been an increase in the number of part-time workers in Canada. In 1961 part-time employment accounted for 7.9 per cent of the total work force. By 1978 this share had increased to 12.1 per cent.
My concern is this. By adding those working 15 to 20 hours per week to the unemployment eligibility rolls, will we find that we have created two problems, the first being an abuse of the principle that the unemployment insurance system was set up to protect workers who worked a normal 35 or 40-hour week? Or, do we suggest that it should now be changed to protect people who work only 15 hours per week? I am not for a minute criticizing people who work on a part-time basis. 1 am suggesting, however, that the minister might find part-time workers objecting to unemployment insurance premiums being deducted from them in the first place. He may also find that part-time workers do not view a part-time job with the same concern as full-time workers and thus object to paying unemployment insurance premiums.
If we find this is a severe drain on the unemployment insurance reserve, will we not find that employees who work full time, because of the increases proposed in the budget, will find that they are paying for the part-time unemployment insurance benefits? Also, if, as, and when this program is brought into place-


Denis Éthier: Order, please, I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, this is a novel concept. I am not saying whether I am for it or against it, but I think it must be examined on that basis. I hope that proper record keeping will be set up so the minister can look at the program after three or four months and ask should we be charging these people more and what sort of an effect is this having on the unemployment insurance program.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I understand the time has expired for both the question and the answer.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a very large department which has a tremendous variety of fields under the minister's jurisdiction. In the New Democratic Party
we are going to try to allocate among our members various aspects of the department which we feel need some discussion.
Today I want to deal with three or four points. I shall attempt to make my points briefly and concisely and deal with them one at a time. I hope the minister will be as brief in his answers as I will be with my questions so we can get a few items discussed.
First, I want to deal with the very serious problem we have in Canada regarding the shortage of skilled workers. In his opening remarks the minister mentioned that there is a parliamentary task force meeting on employment in the 1980s. He mentioned that he wants to hear from them. I know the minister has an internal task force looking into the department. I do not expect the minister to give us a complete answer today on what the department proposes to do. Nevertheless, 1 want to put on the record some things which the parliamentary task force has heard.
From one end of Canada to the other, employees and employers, with the exception of the building trade unions who were before us a couple of days ago-employees grouped from unions, from employers, from community colleges and provincial departments have given the same reports time after time, namely, that the system of training people to fill the skilled jobs we need simply has not done the job.
According to a vice-president of one of our largest banks, we will have more than one million unemployed this winter. Despite that, we have this tremendous shortage of skilled workers.
The Machinery and Equipment Manufacturers Association of Canada made a representation to the task force. I shall quote just a few paragraphs from that report:
-86 per cent of this industry sector was experiencing difficulty in hiring journeyman workers.
-training programs in place at the time of the survey in 1979 would only satisfy 17 per cent of that year's requirements.
The Globe and Mail for Friday, November 28, 1980, summarized a report of the Mining Association of Canada. In part the article in The Globe and Mail reads:
The survey of manpower projections at 69 mining operations across Canada indicates that while the industry will require 5,278 skilled tradesmen by 1982, current training programs will only provide 3,248 trained workers, leaving a gap of 2.030 tradesmen.
Those are just two small illustrations of the problem we have. Mr. John Bullock of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was before our task force last June. Although 1 do not have his exact quote, 1 shall paraphrase what he said which will be right on track. He said something to the effect that the last place an employer will go for a skilled worker is the Department of Employment and Immigration.
My first question is this: can the minister give us any idea of what his department proposes to do to meet this tremendous shortage of skilled workers which we will have in the 1980s?


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
December 5, 1980


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Denis Éthier: When the committee rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Winnipeg North had the floor, 1 presume he has resumed his seat so the minister can answer his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to answer the inquiries of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He referred to the studies submitted by the mining industry to the parliamentary task force. Perhaps he did not know we had participated rather actively in the development of those studies with the association. It has been one of our policies to work very closely with a variety of industrial groups to do the initial analysis and assessment of what their skilled needs might be now and in the future. The commission offered a wide variety of services to them in doing the compilations, getting the numbers, and the actual figuring out of what their needs will be. We are already engaged in getting that very essential first step started, which is to come up with the proper information.
Beyond that, as the hon. member knows, we have a very active program in our training areas where we provide direct incentives to employers. Most of the apprentice programs utilize the Canadian manpower training programs as a way of assisting or subsidizing the training of apprentices. In the last year or two we initiated the critical skills training program which was deliberately designed to provide direct assistance to industrial on-the-floor training. We provide not only the cost of the wages and salaries of the apprentices, but additional costs incurred by the employer in that area.
The hon. member might recall that in my announcement of new programs last spring I indicated we would add $10 million to the critical skills training program as a further incentive to the private sector to begin training more people. The difficulty we encountered with certain downturns in the economy, particularly in the manufacturing area, is that the take-up on the critical skills training program has not been as high as we would have liked. That is one reason why we are looking for ways of enriching the critical skills training program to provide further incentives in this area.
I wish to take this opportunity to point out to the hon. member, who I know is interested, where and how the critical skills training program does offer incentives. I can use one example in Manitoba where, under the critical skills training program, there are now 15 apprentices in the Sherritt Gordon complex, several of those being of native ancestry.
At the Kramer Tractor Company of Regina, Saskatchewan, there are now 12 apprentices on the shop floor compared to the three to five average for the past several years, again attributable to the application of the CSTP program. A major agreement with the interior forest association of British Columbia has been signed to provide for an industry-wide training
Supply
agreement to bring people into these areas. There are a number of efforts being made to provide for that direct incentive.
What we have to overcome is a number of years of neglect by private industry in securing their own training requirements. As indicated in my opening remarks, there has been a tendency by the private sector to rely almost exclusively on the import of skills from other countries. Now that that particular pool of labour is drying up or is not available, the programs to respond simply are not in place in much of private industry.
As the hon. member knows, because of the riding he represents, it takes anywhere from three to five years to do a proper apprenticeship training program. We are facing a certain time lag. These programs are in place. We hope to improve upon the existing critical skills-training system and, furthermore, to look upon the work that he and other members of the parliamentary committee will produce in giving us a broader range of alternative solutions which we will be very interested in implementing once the report is received.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, there have been some good beginnings in the last year or so. The programs which have been initiated represent only a very small fraction of the requirements we will have to meet in the next five to ten years.
I urge the minister and his department to look very carefully at the proposals made to the task force by the Canadian Labour Congress and the grant levy system they proposed.
Respecting the other end of the labour scale, that is, the unskilled, a study done by Professor Adams for the Department of Labour, raises a very serious problem we have with regard to people whose education is far below the minimum required for any kind of skilled training. Let me read from one paragraph in his report in which Professor Adams said:
Adult illiteracy in Canada is a serious social and economic problem which is being largely ignored.
We are talking about five million Canadians, about 20 per cent of Canadian people. He goes on to say that five million Canadians are functionally illiterate and 30 per cent of all Canadians over the age of 15 have no education above grade eight. When we look at the expenditures of the minister's department we see there has been, rather than efforts to improve the situation, a deliberate decision to reduce the effort, to reduce the expenditure on the number of people who need the basic education if they are going to get into any kind of skilled trade over a period of years.
For the year 1973-74 there were 51,900 people enrolled in the Basic Training for Skill Development programs. Every year from 1973-74 right through to 1979-80, the last year we have figures for, there has been a sharp reduction, so that in 1979-80 only 29,600 people were involved in these programs. That means for the people who are functionally illiterate, as Dr. Adams has said-I know it is expensive to train them and 1 know that there are many who never succeed-and for those people the department has cut back on and who are not going to get the basic skill training, we are in fact saying to them

December 5, 1980
Supply
that we accept the idea that they are likely to be on welfare or on public assistance for the rest of their lives.
It is not only immoral to follow that kind of policy but it is damned poor economics. In the long run, it is the training of people that gets them jobs. I suggest to the minister that he should look more carefully at the success of the training programs in the province of Manitoba which have been so successful. We now have over 400 native teachers in the province of Manitoba. Other programs have brought native people, most of whom had been on welfare, into actual productive, useful and satisfying jobs. I urge the minister and his department to work on that kind of problem together with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Lloyd Axworthy: I certainly agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The position taken by the hon. member is an accurate one. There are a large number of Canadians who find themselves without proper basic skills to command any access to the job market. In fact if the hon. member were to look at the unemployment figures, he would find that the largest percentage is concentrated amongst those with the lowest education.
We have a tendency in this House to make fairly broad sweeping generalizations about unemployment. The fact of the matter is that unemployment is a highly concentrated experience for a very small range of Canadians. Those who suffer most deeply from it are those who do not have the proper education or required skills. The difficulty that we face, of course, is one that began much earlier, and we, as a department, cannot be held responsible for that.
The difficulty that we face is a jurisdictional one. May I remind the hon. member that there was a very strong recommendation that came from the Senate committee on manpower that the federal government totally abandon its activity in the Basic Skills Training Program because it really is a provincial responsibility. Of course we have the paradox of provinces demanding that we take less revenues. It is a paradox in the sense that you cannot have it both ways. I certainly sympathize with the concern, and we have maintained an ongoing commitment to the Basic Skills Training Program which is an indication that we realize we must compensate for the vacuum that is created in the educational system in this country. At the same time there is an intensive demand for money for all kinds of programs.
We increasingly believe that more of our resources should be going into the area of skilled training, or particularly target them in on those groups of people in the population who have severe disadvantages and need that kind of opportunity. That is why we have put an increasing effort into our Outreach programs to provide that kind of access, and that is why we are looking at alternative employment programs for disadvantaged workers.
I suggest to the hon. member and all other members of this House that they use their good offices to make the case in
committee that the provincial governments must also accept their responsibility in this field.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, of course the provinces have to accept their responsibility, but the fact is that it is not of much use to the people who do not have education to be told by provinces that the federal government should do it, and by the federal government that the provinces should do it. I point out to the minister that a very large percentage of those who do not have education are status Indians who are the direct responsibility of the federal government.
I remind the minister of the success in the province of Manitoba of teacher-training programs. There are now over 400 native teachers in Manitoba and doing a very excellent job. They became teachers because of special programs funded by the federal and provincial governments. If there can be 400 native teachers, why can we not have special programs to train native people to become social workers, probation officers, correctional officers or conservation officers? They are all fields in which native people are involved.
More than 50 per cent of the people in our jails are native people. Why can there not be native correctional officers? I am sure it is not particularly difficult to train people to the correctional officers, even if they do not have high school education. Most of the people who are now teachers did not have high school education. Why can the minister's department, together with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, not put into effect some of these practical programs so that native people can be employed, do useful work, set an example to the native community and show it that they can in fact make it and find a useful and productive place in our society?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I point out to the hon. member that there are a number of programs available in our department which apply directly to the issue he has raised. We spend well over $30 million a year under LEAP directly on native-sponsored projects. LEAP itself provides a wide variety of opportunities for native people as well as for others who lack the skills needed to get their first work experience and to acquire certain other basic skills.
There have been a number of notable successes, including one in our own province. I recall attending an opening this past summer at the Ukrainian cultural centre where one of the Indian bands were operating a major woodworking and woodcarving project under LEAP. This is now becoming a commercially viable enterprise standing on its own merits and generating sufficient funds to keep itself in operation. We do have LEAP-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to the questioner has expired. Nevertheless, the minister may carry on if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 5, 1980


Lloyd Axworthy: Perhaps 1 could point out that in addition to LEAP, which we operate, we initiated an additional $10 million native training fund this year to provide new training opportunities to native people. I can report to the hon. member that that fund has already received a very widespread response from native bands and groups right across Canada. It will be providing additional opportunities for native people to get basic skill training.


Mr. MacLaren:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the item before us today, I want to ask some questions of the minister, but I want first to say a word about the initiatives taken by the minister and his department to help alleviate the suffering which has resulted from the recent earthquake in Italy. The prompt response of the Government of Canada, as an expression of humanitarian instinct has been a source of pride for all Canadians. I should not want this occasion to pass without noting the rapid and effective response to that disaster made by the minister and his department.
The discussion so far has been centred in large measure on the question of manpower training. It is to that subject that I would like to address myself for a moment, and then I shall ask the minister for elucidation of some of the interesting points he made during his introductory statement.
We are all aware that today in Canada the problem of availability of skilled labour is a deterrent, to a degree, to our further economic development. While the problem has been identified often enough in recent years the solutions have eluded us partly, I think, because they depend on federal-provincial co-operation and, indeed, co-operation among three levels of government. We have sometimes achieved our goals only because we have had, as the minister noted, the opportunity to draw upon skills and trained manpower from other countries through the immigration policies we have pursued.
Although one might note the variety of programs which the Canadian government has put into place over the past decade to help promote skilled manpower training in Canada, it must be obvious to all of us that more remains to be done in a way which will effectively involve labour and industry in a co-operative venture with the government more than has been the case in the past.
Some, of course, describe the current situation as a crisis. That may be an overstatement, but there is no question that with new and often science-based industries coming on stream, and with mega projects, particularly in the energy field, looming before us, the demand for skilled manpower will become yet more acute.
In addition, there is a challenge to the department to promote programs which offer the worker not only training in skills but also the opportunity to achieve some self-fulfilment in his workplace, an aspect of employment that perhaps in the past has not always received the attention some of us would have desired.
The minister noted earlier that we in Canada have had for some time, the highest rate of job creation amongst the OECD countries, but that has been matched by an even larger
Supply
number of workers, especially young and often untrained young people, coming on the job market. This volume of new workers has exceeded that of almost all other western countries in proportion to our total population. Even though we have had that problem in the past, I ask the minister whether it is his expectation that the growth in the labour force, which has been running at about 3 per cent annually for some years, is expected soon to drop off? If indeed that rate of growth is expected to decline significantly, how does he see that changing the emphasis and scope of his departmental programs as we proceed through the decade of the 1980s?
The minister and others in the House have already mentioned the question of the training of specific groups in the time ahead. As I understand it, the expectation with respect to new workers coming on to the job market is that some 65 per cent will be women. Whether that is an accurate estimate is perhaps a secondary consideration. The fact remains that large numbers of women will be entering the job market for the first time. Presumably the minister has in mind some appropriate training programs, which he has indeed mentioned to a certain extent, but if he could give us some further details on that aspect of skilled training I for one would be very glad to have them.
The success of many of our training programs in the past has depended on co-operation between two and even three levels of government. During the early part of next year the federal-provincial training agreements under the Adult Occupational Training Act expire. I hope that plans are made either for the renewal or the revision of those joint federal-provincial arrangements. If the minister has a comment to make on the evolving nature of those federal-provincial arrangements, I would be pleased to hear it.
Some reference has been made to the question of mobility in the work force. I understand that 4.5 million Canadians change their jobs annually or enter and leave the work force. The need for mobility, which has been incorporated in the constitutional proposals, becomes all the more important, but so do the mobility programs of the department. If the minister has some comment about the mobility assistance programs of the department and whether he sees the need for acceleration in that activity in the time ahead, I would be very glad to hear it.
Finally, the success which I suggested earlier of our manpower training programs depends, to a very large degree, not only on co-operation between the two principal levels of government in Canada but also on the active participation of labour and industry. There are those who have criticized industry for its reluctance to provide the necessary funds and commitment to ensure skilled training because of the ready access to immigrant skills. There have been those, on the other hand, who have criticized labour unions for being defensive and protective in attempting to ensure the work of their members by, in effect, opposing or being reluctant to participate in labour-skilled training programs.

December 5, 1980
Supply
In that connection I would take some encouragement from the fact that the Business Council on National Issues, the BCNI, has taken some initiatives to promote industry co-operation with the government, not only in the design of skilled manpower training programs but also in some financial support for that activity. Equally, the CLC more recently has taken a more pronounced interest in the training of skilled manpower. I hope that from that growing consciousness, on the part of industry and labour, of the vital need in Canada for more skilled manpower, a quadripartite effort involving the federal-provincial governments, labour and business, would soon emerge. I hope that the minister will offer comments on that as well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, in response to the parliamentary secretary's comments I think it would be quite accurate to say that there will be major changes in the composition of the labour force over the next four or five years. Perhaps the most dramatic one will be the gradual decline in the growth of that labour force, from a high of about 3 per cent over the past decade to about 1.7 per cent.
The impact of that change will be felt in a number of areas where there will be an increasing shrinkage in the available manpower for certain key occupations, because that decline in the labour force will be accompanied by a substantial expansion in the economic sectors, such as manufacturing, capital goods, and non-residential construction, which have traditionally employed men in their activities. What that dictates to us very clearly is the need to provide for ways of making a transition for the female work force in this country in the non-traditional work, both to increase their opportunities in a fast growing area in the economy as well as to ensure that there is a sufficient number of people to do the jobs necessary.
The initiatives that one could take in this area combine a requirement to eliminate discrimination in the workplace where it does exist, and that is why this summer we introduced the affirmative action program in the public service to provide very direct public leadership in this area so that those barriers would come down and so that we could demonstrate to the private sector that that is one way of ensuring that there is better and more open access for women in the work force as well as for minority groups.
At the same time, we believe there must also be a series of incentives. One of the trial projects which we are trying, and which we announced last spring, is a training program for women in non-traditional work, under which we offered to pay 75 per cent of the wages of a trainee. I think the success of it is shown because there has been already an increase of over 60 per cent in women going into non-traditional work in 1979, work of machinists, miners, and so on. We will be monitoring the effect of that program carefully to see if that kind of incentive can be used to encourage employers to bring women into training positions in their own plants or shop floor, as well as into the very critical areas of resource skills.
What we have to do also, as I indicated in my opening remarks, is to make sure that there is a much more efficient system of translation between where the jobs are and where
people with the skills are. The hon. member for Simcoe North indicated this morning that a brief had been submitted by the executive board of the Building and Trade Labour Council. 1 would like to report to hon. members that I met with that group last evening to discuss their brief with them and some of the proposals they made about how to ensure greater mobility for Canadian workers in the resource projects. These proposals were very thoughtful and were very well received.
I indicated to the group last night that we will take on in particular the proposal for tying a closer relationship between immigration and the requirement for mobility, as well as the idea of a taxable refund on mobility. I intend to take it up with the Minister of Finance to provide greater incentives for workers to move from their present location to where the jobs might be so that we can provide for a more efficient working system.
As to the final point raised by the parliamentary secretary about the need for co-ordination, it is one of those motherhood phrases which everyone uses, that we must have more co-ordination. Unfortunately in this field not much has taken place. There has been a serious breakdown over the years between industry, labour and government, and between governments in this area. One of the things I have been trying to do in the last several months has been to sit down with groups in each of the industrial sectors, in mining, in oil and gas, in aerospace, in furniture manufacturing, in textiles, to see how we could develop a co-ordinated approach from our side in those areas. There has been a high degree of response from the industrial leaders.
I want to report, however, that there is not quite the same keenness and enthusiam expressed by provincial officials, particularly in our western provinces where they tend to want to go it alone and, as a result, are substantially impeding the development of new training programs in these areas. Again this highlights the importance, as mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, of the need to establish mobility rights in the charter to ensure that that is seen as a signal or signpost upon which we can develop a national employment strategy, one that will take into account that there is an enormous movement of people from one end of the country to the other.
The only way we can supply our human resource need and ensure that there is effective productivity is to ensure the easy movement of the people to where the jobs are. So long as we tolerate or allow barriers to exist, we will not be able to employ a national employment strategy. To those who sometimes condemn the constitutional debate as being somewhat abstract or academic in this area, I would say that certainly in this area, it is a very real and vital necessity to make our economy grow.


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I say to the minister that if I do not leave him time to reply to some of the points that I am going to raise, and if he has a chance later in the day or on Monday to do so, I want to emphasize that I have to leave the House shortly before four o'clock and I cannot be back on Monday, and therefore when he does reply, if I should be absent my absence is certainly not dictated by
December 5, 1980

any lack of courtesy or lack of interest in what the minister has to say, but it is simply inadvertent because, particularly this week, and on Monday, I am preoccupied with the Stratford Festival in my riding.
1 do not want to dwell on the festival as a narrow issue, except I think I should say a couple of things because the broader issue is much more important and relevant. One matter that may or may not be minor on the specific issue of the festival is the answer which the minister gave to my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge, who, as the minister might recall, put a question in two parts to him. First he talked about Peter Ustinov doing King Lear for two consecutive seasons as compared to the Dexter application for artistic director, but in the same question my colleague dealt with certain athletes and mentioned, for example, the Jamie Bone case.
In his reply the minister cautioned my colleague to distinguish between someone coming into the country on a permanent basis and someone coming in under a visa for a shortterm engagement. 1 have not seen the specific application of Mr. Dexter, but traditionally artistic directors, whether it was Sir Tyrone Guthrie, Mr. Neville, Robin Phillips or whoever, would come in under work permits or working visas rather than under landed immigrant status. I hope the minister was not implying that unless such is the case and Mr. Dexter was applying for landed immigrant status. I do not think he was. 1 see the minister shaking his head. Perhaps he was referring more to athletes than the Ustinov-Dexter cases.
I should like to make one or two comments concerning the Dexter case. The minister is in possession of much more information than 1. I acknowledge that fact, and he acknowledged that I was one of the instruments, albeit minor, who supplied some of the information to him. If we compare what I know to what he knows and acknowledging that he has facilities for gathering information, I think I would have come to the opposite conclusion vis-a-vis the application. But 1 am not sure that is what is important in the present context.
The minister will know this is an extremely important and emotional issue. The obvious inclination is to seek someone to blame, or a scapegoat. Some people may like to blame the board of directors; some people may like to blame the minister. 1 would like to blame the minister, from a partisan point of view, because it is very convenient. 1 am very emotional about this issue. Some people may blame the previous directorate; others may blame heaven only knows whom. I think that is natural, and it is understandable that it is very unproductive as far as the festival and the country are concerned. Likely the minister would share that view with me. 1 hope everyone picks up the pieces, in some form or another, and goes on to restore that institution to the level we would like to have.
I want to deal with issues far broader than the Stratford festival, the vehicle which brought them to my attention. The criteria in the minister's press release included "a thorough and reasonable search". On December 3 I asked the minister for guidelines which would assist in determining who might be
Supply
admitted to the country under a work permit. As reported at page 5283 of Hansard, the minister said:
-the question is which guidelines apply to companies, groups or organizations in Canada in terms of their hiring policy.
On the same page he was later reported as saying:
There is a responsibility on the part of any employer to ensure that proper and extensive searches are made to make sure that Canadians do have that opportunity of access to those jobs.
He went on to say that there was a certain obligation, as reported at page 5284 of Hansard:
-to make sure that when a choice is made Canadians are given the opportunity to make application and to have access to that employment. That is the only criterion.
This is where the minister and I part ways. The minister referred my colleagues and me to the legislation and the spirit in which Parliament passed the act because on December 3 1 asked about the economic and cultural considerations. I think the same answer would apply to the cultural considerations, but when 1 asked him about the economic ones, he said:
The decision with regard to the economic impact of the appointment of a director should fall squarely upon the board of directors of that institution.
I think the minister is wrong. He suggested that we on this side should read the act, which is good advice. In part I, section 3 of the act, the objectives of the Canadian immigration policy, the preamble indicates that the act is "designed and administered in such a manner as to promote the domestic and international interest of Canada". I emphasize the word "international", but then it goes on to indicate one of the criterion in section 3(b) is "to enrich and strengthen the cultural and social fabric of Canada, taking into account the federal and bilingual" characteristics of Canada. Subsection (e) is "to facilitate the entry of visitors into Canada for the purposes of fostering trade, commerce, tourism, cultural and scientific activities and international understanding." Subsection (h) is "to foster the development of a strong and viable economy and the prosperity of all regions in Canada."
1 accused the minister of implementing immigration policy in isolation or in a vacuum, but I believe he has a mandate to consider much more than a thorough and extensive search. He said:
-to make sure that when a choice is made Canadians are given the opportunity to make application and to have access to that employment. That is the only criterion.
The act does not indicate that it is the only criterion. It lists various criteria in terms of what shall be considered as "designed and administered in such a manner as to promote the domestic and international interests of Canada". It goes on to specify economic, cultural and tourism interests. Yet the minister said that the only criterion is to ensure "Canadians are given the opportunity to make application".
In reading the criteria in the act, I have great difficulty reconciling them with the minister's answers in the House earlier this week. It seems to me, if we bring in someone of international renown to work with Canadians, as we have in Stratford and other artistic endeavors, it is greatly in the

December 5, 1980
Supply
interests of Canadians. I am sure other theatrical companies have done this. Perhaps the Toronto symphony is a good example in terms of visiting conductors. I do not know, but certainly non-Canadian conductors have been brought in to conduct that symphony orchestra during its history. It is greatly in the interests of Canadians to have the marvellous and unique opportunity of working with the best in the world.


Mr. McDermid:: Ontario Place.


William Herbert Jarvis: Yes, Ontario Place, as my colleague mentions. I am sure there are various examples. Maybe the Winnipeg symphony would be a better-known example to the minister. Perhaps I could refer to the Neptune Theatre, the Citadel Theatre or wherever.
I am not a soccer fan; 1 do not know much about the sport, but when the North American Soccer League was getting started it brought Pele from Brazil to participate in the league. I thought it was terrific because it attracted an interest in the sport which otherwise would not have occurred. Robin Phillips is the outgoing artistic director of Stratford. I think it is marvellous that a company, which is 98 per cent Canadian, had the chance to work with Robin Phillips because it makes them better performers.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


William Herbert Jarvis: I think the minister should read the act and look at some of the other criteria. I am really concerned-and 1 think the Liberal government has been consistent in this regard-about the government's Peter Newman mentality. Peter Newman's mentality is to build a cultural curtain around Canada, which is based on the premise that we are not good enough to compete outside Canada. There may be some basis for it, but I do not accept it. I remember the Hon. Robert Stanfield indicating something to the effect that a truly dynamic country must be more than a refuge. I am not a very profound person, but that comment meant a great deal to me.
1 read the comments of Mr. Bliss, the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Opera Company, who drew very interesting distinctions. He said one might consider top talent-I suppose he meant in terms of performers, directors or producers-in a different light than ordinary talent. I suppose one might compare Maggie Smith coming into Stratford, or a symphony director coming into Toronto, or a soccer star coming in to play soccer, in a different light than an understudy at Stratford. In my view that understudy has to be Canadian so he or she benefit from the Maggie Smiths and whomever else- Brian Bedford, and so on. Mr. Bliss draws that distinction very well. 1 am not quite sure the minister does.
But the other distinction which is even more important and which is hard to come to grips with is that Mr. Bliss says one must distinguish between a performing company in a national sense, a national company, and a world company. And he considers the Metropolitan Opera Company a world company.
I cannot judge that because I am not an opera fan and I do not
know much about it. But Mr. Bliss said he considers the Metropolitan Opera Company an international company, a world company. Therefore, one can make the distinction that international stars should be admitted to the U.S. to sing with that company.
Maybe I think too much of Stratford but I am told by those whose judgment I value that Stratford is in the top three, internationally, in the English-speaking theatre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: I say to the minister we may be the victim of our own success. There is a down side if they are in that league. It is the big league, and you have to play with the big guys in that league. That may be part of the problem. The Minister of Communications said to his colleague, the Minister of Immigration, that Stratford is an international institution. I agree with him. I think we all agree on that. I am not sure the Minister of Immigration is in agreement with that because of this Peter Newman philosophy. Maybe there are other institutions in that category. I suppose the Montreal Canadiens are more than a national institution-I would hope so, having won that many Stanley Cups. I do not think the minister understands there is another category, which Mr. Bliss calls the world company class.
I think we build walls around Canada under the guise of nationalism. It is true, because we are afraid and timid to compete in the greater world arena. 1 do not know why we should be afraid to compete. The minister knows we have had extraordinary Canadians in the TV production field who went to the United States and the United Kingdom because they wanted to get into that competition since it did not exist here. They wanted to have a chance to compete with the best, to see how they would fare. I say bravo to that. If the reverse is true, if a Maggie Smith, a Brian Bedford, a John Dexter, a Robin Phillips, a Peter Cole or a John Neville is permitted into Canada to work with Canadian companies-98 per cent Canadian like Stratford-I think that gives the Canadian a tremendous amount of confidence when people like those I have mentioned say, "You are good. I know, because I am an international judge. I have directed all over the English-speaking world." I think it is absolutely magnificent for Canadians to have that kind of compliment paid to them. I do not know if the comparison I have given is very good with reference to the extensive search.
Does the minister really believe that if the Winnipeg Blue Bombers fire their coach they will conduct an extensive and exhaustive search before they make an offer to someone from the NHL?
That has been our history. I do not know how many of them there have been. I suppose the coach in Edmonton who has been here a long time may be a naturalized Canadian. Maybe George Brancato is one. We all know, generally speaking, that CFL coaches are brought in from the U.S., usually under work permits, and they go back to Texas, Louisiana, or New York at the end of the season and spend the winter in a more moderate climate. Then they return under work permits.
December 5, 1980

With respect to musicians and conductors, I wonder if we really have an extensive and exhaustive search for a Canadian before someone comes in to spend a year or two with the Toronto Symphony. The other category is with respect to university professors. I do not know what it is like now, but when 1 went to university there were always several professors from the United Kingdom, and more from the U.S. At law schools 1 attended there were professors from Harvard, Yale or Columbia. I never heard about an exhaustive search being conducted to find a Canadian. The same applies to football coaches and players, and so on.
The last point 1 want to make is that the minister has selected a certain criterion. He says there is just one. I think there are more. What very much disturbs me is that he has that absolute right-I quarrel with the criteria but I agree when he says he has to make the final decision here. Sure he does, and I respect that. I do not have any direct quote to nail him with, but I am worried about the minister going beyond that and saying, "You must satisfy me that you have made a thorough search." If he has not said expressly, "Go out and make a thorough search", he has implied it. That is okay. But when he says "I know there is somebody out there", that is not okay. The second part is not okay.
The minister cannot be the czar of professional athletics, of the performing arts, of university professors or symphony conductors. The minister can set these guidelines out for these organizations, that is, that they must go through the process. Maybe the process is only putting the notice on the board at manpower offices which says that the job is open. I think it should be more than that. I think the minister thinks it should be more than that. But I do not think the minister can say, "Go out and do this search because I know there are Canadians out there who can fill this job." The minister might even go so far as to say that there is John Doe, Mr. X and Mr. Y, out there, and so on. But that second step is too dangerous.
The minister has no mandate, no ability, nor do his officials, to substitute their judgment for the judgment of the board of directors of an athletic club, a theatre, or a university board of governors, or whatever. He has no mandate, no ability, and I presume precious little time to substitute his judgment and determine who shall be selected. He has all the authority in the world to set the criteria, but I say to the minister that he is interpreted by many as having taken that second vis-a-vis Stratford. He has virtually said to Stratford, "Do the search". Not only that, he has gone on to say "because I know there is a Canadian who can do the job." There may very well be. I hope so. But the minister has not the authority to go that far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The hon. minister may answer only if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. members for allowing me to respond. The points made by the hon. member are worthy and deserving of a response if only to clarify the
Supply
reason for the decision and the grounds upon which it was made. I hope I can answer some of his questions so he can properly relate them to his constituents in Stratford who, I know, are quite concerned.
I would like to begin by giving the hon. member every assurance that I have neither Peter Newman's mentality nor his money, nor any other of his characteristics. It is not that I do not respect the man but I do not think those are the grounds upon which the decision was made. There is a requirement under the act that any employer, whether an artistic organization, university, a factory or a firm, shall undertake a proper search to find out if there are Canadians available to fill the vacancy. In this circumstance it is quite clear to me, having weighed the evidence from a number of sources, that the board of directors has not conducted such a search in accordance with the law.
I would like to recall one series of events, without going through the whole history. The board of directors had in place a four-person directorate made up of Canadians, whom they dismissed. It was their right to do that. But at the very instant of dismissing them they made application for the hiring of Mr. Dexter, who was obviously a qualified man. There was not even a hint of hesitation between that act of dismissal and the act of hiring a new director from offshore. The hon. member must agree that this does not constitute a proper and effective search especially when a person to replace the one who was just fired is already at hand. I have made no effort, and will make no effort, to dictate to anybody as to who should be chosen. As I have said in this House before, I feel it is my responsibility to ensure that Canadians in the artistic community at least have a chance to make application for a given job and to demonstrate their credentials so as to be duly considered by the board. Canadians should not be totally ignored because it was felt, in the judgment of the board, that Mr. Dexter could do a better job.
The point is that it was not a matter of preference over Canadians; it was a total exclusion of Canadians. The claim by the board that it spent 18 months does not hold water because evidence clearly shows that it stretched beyond the 18 months. Many of the offers made went back 18 months before Mr. Dexter even became a gleam in the eye and before the director was hired. There is a lot of history which could be gone into, but I would simply assure the hon. member that the judgment employed was employed for the reason that it appeared Canadians were being excluded.
I would also point out to the hon. member, because he has raised some general principles with regard to the Immigration Act and how it applies to athletes and other groups of people, that there is the requirement that other groups and organizations must apply exactly the same standards. The case at Stratford has been duplicated many other times by many other ministers who have had to make a similar judgment. For example, there are very strict standards in the hiring of a university personnel, partially because over a period of years

December 5, 1980
Supply
the tendency was, perhaps due to academic routine-and I can attest to that-some university faculties were composed up to 70 per cent or 90 per cent of Americans or people from other countries. This occurred even though there were Canadians in the same field available. There was a certain disposition to think that someone from a certain graduate school should be hired. 1 will not go into it, but what we require now when a university wishes to hire a dean, a president or a professor, is a demonstration that it has made a proper search for academics of similar qualification across Canada.
It goes back to the point I made earlier in my remarks-that certain cases hit the headlines because they have a sensational quality, they strike the imagination or because a confrontation occurs. Decisions have to be taken on these cases all the time. Unfortunately, 1 deal only with the rough cases. The easier cases are handled further down the line and the tough ones are passed up quickly. Discretion must be employed in most of the immigration categories because one is dealing with personalities. Immigration is not a matter of rubber-stamping something from a machine. It involves people with different histories, backgrounds, needs, and requirements and discretion must be applied.
There is no one in this chamber who would rather have the situation another way than me because I am the one who ends up making the decision. As 1 have discovered, there is no such thing as a totally happy decision; it tends to cut both ways, but these judgments must be made. One of the reasons we are in this chamber is that we have been elected to make such decisions. Public servants should not be called upon to take the tough decisions because they are not accountable; the decision cannot be made by a computer because it is a mechanical function. We will always be judged on the basis on which we take our decisions because of matters of human behaviour, and must be judged by people who apply some sense of standards.
Our judgements will differ. I guess that over a period of time the shadings of decisions made by members opposite would be different from those made by members on this side because of our different philosophies. One philosophy is Liberal and the other philosophy is Conservative. Each side feels strongly about its philosophy, and that would dictate a certain different range of decisions.
Rarely is there a clearcut answer to any immigration case. There are reasonable arguments on both sides and that is why we must spend time assessing the facts going over the information. Immigration sometimes slows down in its procedures, because it takes so long to gather all the documentation together and talk to the people involved. I have expressed concerns similar to those of the hon. member as to how well it all works under the new act. That is why I have established a task force within the department, namely, to examine things like the use of ministerial permits and the appeal procedures. I want to make sure that there is an absolute guarantee of fairness and equity in the system and eliminate areas where there may be a high degree of bias.
Since taking over this ministry I have had the opportunity to look at some of the past cases of my predecessor from the
Conservative party. He was faced with equally tough and controversial decisions. I can recall feeling some sympathy for my predecessor while watching him on television during the last election as he was being barricaded in his constituency office by a group of people who did not like his decision in one particular case. In this area one is called upon to make Solomon-like judgments which turn out to be not so Solomon-like, but one can only do one's best. We should not dismiss in quite so cavalier fashion the idea that we can simply have this great open international policy. We as a Parliament spend a lot of money to defend the concept of the Canadian culture. Close to $600 million is spent on the CBC each year to ensure that there is a Canadian alternative. We do so for the reason that Canada is in a unique position. We have a small population with its own traditions and we live beside a very large country with enormous power and influence in media, culture and the arts.


John Horton McDermid: Yet we bring in all kinds of movie stars.


Lloyd Axworthy: The requirements under the American labour laws for Canadians to be employed in the arts there are much tougher than our requirements. One of the reasons groups such as Actors' Equity and ACTRA become so incensed about Britons, Americans or someone else coming to Canada is that these organizations know full well they will not have the same ease of access to these foreign countries.


John Horton McDermid: Is that right?


Lloyd Axworthy: It happens to be true.


John Horton McDermid: Is that right?


Lloyd Axworthy: It is not right, but the fact is they create that kind of problem. Our problem is almost double because we are faced with the enormous influence which is exerted on the Canadian media and theatre and which could overwhelm us unless there was some form of response or alternative.
In an institution with the importance and significance of Stratford, the board of directors has a responsibility to give some due care and sensitive consideration to the availability of Canadians for the job. I am not saying that it is required to hire a Canadian, but it should make sure that it gives proper consideration to the hiring of a Canadian, and in this case there was no such consideration. That was the sole basis for the judgment.
The hon. member has said we should be careful because of the economic and cultural impact. I can assure him that I have considered these areas. I have had contact with members of Stratford to determine how the matter can be resolved. It is important that the festival go on, but it must be according to the spirit of the law of Canada and according to our principles and objectives in that law. I would hope that the hon. member, when he goes back to his riding, will argue for flexibility and openness in the minds of the board of directors who, rather than respond to my decision of last week and say, "If that is the decision we will start a search", up to this point in time have implacably refused to take any steps whatsoever.
December 5, 1980

We have taken certain initiatives in this regard, and 1 hope they will produce results. The board has not responded in that spirit, but has simply dug in its heels. I know that the member will use his office to say that there should be a way of ensuring that the festival will go on with the spirit of the law being honoured and recognized. 1 appreciate the way in which the hon. member has approached this matter, because I know it has caused him some difficulty in his riding. As 1 know there is a solution to Stratford, I dearly hope that the matter will be resolved, but it must be on the grounds of how I think I must administer, judge and interpret the laws.


Mr. Dubois:: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the estimates of the Department of Employment and Immigration, I would like to deal briefly with all the programs which have been carried on and whose estimates have been increased and afterwards 1 will put the usual questions to the minister about those programs. First, as the House may recall, in June last, more especially on June 2, the department announced a series of steps costing some $137 million for this financial year, their purpose being to meet the critical and immediate problem of employment facing many Canadians. Of those $137 million, more than $100 million have been allotted this winter and next year to the community development program, especially in those areas where the unemployment rate is higher. In connection with that program, Canada Works, I think that under the previous government our colleagues opposite had decided to drop it. They will surely open their eyes and their ears to learn that many projects which could be beneficial to many people have been introduced.
In Quebec those projects are still very popular and many people have submitted applications. Any member from Quebec, as well as any other province will confirm that the amounts budgeted proved insufficient in view of the numerous applications. The one thing I regret is that, as far as Quebec is concerned, the program was to create jobs for unemployed men and women. Many associations, such as co-operatives and organizations, could submit projects.
What is especially unfortunate, and this, I am sure, is of great concern to the minister, is that the present government in Quebec refused to participate in that type of program by allowing municipalities to sponsor projects. I would like to deal with this refusal by my provincial government which I find deplorable. As a member of Parliament from Quebec I cannot accept the idea that my government, as a self-proclaimed promoter of job creation, could stand in the way of well established organizations, such as municipalities which are keenly aware of the needs and which can grant applications for sponsorship. I cannot understand why the Quebec government could have refused. The situation was such, in many municipalities of my riding, that people had to turn back and try, shortly before the deadline, and still claiming that municipali-
Supply
ties had the authority to sponsor the projects, to find other organizations which do not always have the guarantees or the ability to act as sponsor for job-creation projects. A number of mayors in my area have brought up the problem. I certainly hope that the situation can be solved in the year ahead.
The community development program for Quebec had a budget of $37,931,000. In early December, 1,059 of those projects had already been approved for a total of $29 million. There were 3,247 applications received in Quebec, which would have required a total of $186,507,499. For example, and this situation does not exist only in my riding of Lotbiniere, 1 had a budget of $336,000, while the amounts requested in the applications would have required over $2 million.
How is it that a government like that of Quebec, which claims to be progressive, perhaps not Progressive Conservative but progressive, should not realize just how popular that program is and allow permanent bodies such as municipalities to participate in an activity that is most important for job creation? With regard to community development programs, 1 said earlier in my remarks that the previous government had cancelled them. When you see the number of applications, even from Quebec alone, you realize just how much the people appreciate that kind of activity and are happy to participate and give jobs out there in our ridings.
Another example allows us to continue in that field. Looking at the years 1970-1979, we see that Canada, through the Canadian government, created more jobs, on a percentage basis than the United States, Australia, Sweden, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, countries whose economic growth is fairly high. On a percentage basis, according to my source, which is not really political, in fact it is the OECD, percentagewise Canada created over 32 per cent compared with 23 per cent for the United States, on a scale of zero, going up and down, in both directions. We see therefore that this situation should be maintained and even improved upon; we should not do what the administration did that is now sitting across the way from us, when it dropped those programs. The program situation having been brought up since June, there was talk of community development programs.
In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I think that the funds earmarked for those programs should be increased in the not too distant future because many people are involved in them. For instance, you have daycare centres, child care after school hours, emergency assistance services and also home care services for the old. Many people who were not directly affected by the community development program approached me, as my colleagues from Quebec have also surely been approached, with the suggestion that projects be presented to help out the old who are housebound and who do not have the help required to clean up the house and do odd jobs of that kind, and they asked us: Is it possible to introduce that type of program? Before going any further, I shall put the question directly to you. Do you think those programs can be restructured and
5424

December 5, 1980
Supply
their budgets increased in the near future, in view of the outstanding demand for them?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asks two very important questions. I should point out to hon. members, particularly those from the province of Quebec, that we have run into a real difficulty with the allocation of funds under the direct job employment programs with the province of Quebec.
Before the announcement of those programs or the allocation of funds, we made a special effort to consult with the province of Quebec and to encourage them to allow their municipalities to have access to direct employment money. As hon. members know, there is a law in that province which deals with the municipalities, requiring them to have the agreement of the provincial government before accepting a federal government grant in this area. To my disappointment, that has not been allowed for these direct employment programs. It has been denied. Mr. Johnson, who is no longer in the relevant portfolio, was quite adamant about this. I can assure hon. members, however, that as long as we are in this business we will keep trying to convince him otherwise. Perhaps it may take other changes instituted by the people of Quebec to bring this about, rather than something that we can do in this chamber.


Jean-Guy Dubois: A change of government.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. I am not in the position to make recommendations to the people of Quebec about their politics but perhaps in this case they have a very good and compelling reason for making a change!
I want to thank the hon. member for his comments about the community development project. As he knows, we had to put this program into effect very quickly because of its cancellation by the previous administration. Sometimes these things do not work as well as we would like, but generally we have been able to supply a good service, particularly to areas of high unemployment. The difficulty we ran into was in the actual allocation of funds, as we were working on estimates provided by the previous government. What we were able to do was translate some of that money back into the direct employment program. It is certainly my intention to make a case for additional funding under these programs because I think it fits the philosophy which we put forward in the Speech from the Throne. In other words, where we have resources in the employment field, they should go where the needs are greatest. It is my intention to apply most of the funds in the areas where unemployment is the highest, and to make sure the money actually goes into projects which normally provide employment but can provide valuable services to those communities also. Those are the two principles upon which we try to work. I ask the hon. member to use his good offices when and if he has an opportunity to discuss these matters with my colleagues. Perhaps he can help to provide them with the same encouragement he is providing me, by urging that we should be doing more in the direct employment field.
[ Translation]


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. minister and take note of this assertion concerning representations to be made to his colleagues. I think that this situation, particularly as it relates to community service programs, brings us to deal with a very important point because those projects which had been put forward are those which applied to the care of older people. Many departmental officials told us: In this regard, if you introduce programs for the care of older people in a home, you will create a dependency and that is not what we want. But I suggest the community service program indeed meets our desires and we will not fail to make the necessary representations to your colleagues.
There is another program which offers many possibilities, the Local Employment Assistance Program, LEAP for short. This program offers long-term financing for projects which contribute to business development and provide permanent employment for the participants or prepare them for a regular job. I have a question for the minister about this program. Some businesses in my constituency have tried to apply for assistance under this program. I come from the Lotbiniere-Victoriaville area which comes under the jurisdiction of the administrative region of Trois-Rivieres, which is part of the Sherbrooke region, which in turn comes under the jurisdiction of Montreal. Montreal oversees all these other areas, and a general budget is provided for a very large region, so that the officials of your department whom we contacted told us-


The Chairman:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address himself to the committee chairman.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Chairman, could the department not decentralize the allocation of sums under this program, as it does for community development projects, because we are now being told the Montreal region has a certain amount of money to distribute among the Trois-Rivieres, Victoriaville and Sherbrooke areas and there is not enough to go around. Would it be possible eventually to decentralize the LEAP program? It seems to be very popular, but it is too centralized in Montreal and this causes budget problems.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, concerning the administration of the community development project, we have been working through the idea of an advisory board being placed in each constituency. This advisory board would work within the regional office of the employment and immigration commission. Actual processing does take place in the regional office in Montreal for the province of Quebec. However, we do rely very strongly upon the advice and recommendation of the local employment officers working with the advisory board and members of Parliament.
I am open to taking advice and recommendations as to how we could improve delivery of the program as well as how we
December 5, 1980

might provide for greater accountability at the local level. We use the constituency advisory board system so there can be very strong local recommendations coming from each of the local communities within the riding. I believe that is what the hon. member is referring to-or is there another area that I missed?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is another program, the full name is the Local Employment Assistance Program. This is a permanent program which provides for the long-term financing of projects that will contribute to the creation of an enterprise offering permanent jobs to people or preparing them for steady employment. It is rather this program that I am asking the minister to decentralize and not the community development projects. We know that each of the ridings have to go to Montreal to submit their projects. LEAP, that is, the Local Employment Assistance Program, is overcentralized in Montreal in my opinion. Is there any way to improve on this situation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member. 1 did not quite understand his question the first time around. If he is referring to the LEAP program, that is presently administered from the regional office in Montreal. What I might provide for him is something that we have now introduced in two of the western provinces under that program. I was not very satisfied with the delivery of that program in my own province of Manitoba, nor in the province of Saskatchewan, and for exactly the same reason. The projects tend to be given to one group of people and many others are ignored. A task force was set up in those two provinces. It recommended that allocation be done on a regional basis within the province. I would be quite prepared to talk with members of Parliament from Quebec to see if they would like to introduce a similar review in their own province and come up with similar recommendations. I do not mean they would have to come up with identical ones, but we could look at a delivery system within the province of Quebec to see if we could get a better representation. I will undertake, through my parliamentary secretary, to discuss that with members of Parliament from Quebec to see if that can be done.
[ Translation]


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) for one last question.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Chairman, my last question deals with a situation which is gaining popularity in Canada and in Quebec. A number of families are adopting children from other countries as well as children from Canadian or Quebec parents. Some people have come to us to ask for the same benefits as for a mother giving birth to a child and getting unemployment benefits for a while before going back to work.
So I would like to ask the minister if under his department's policies in relation with adoption internationally or domestical-
S apply
ly, a working woman deciding to adopt a child could not enjoy the same unemployment benefits. What are we doing for that kind of woman now?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member that that is one of the topics being looked at in the unemployment insurance review which we initiated last spring. The first report will be in my hands before Christmas. It does include examination of that topic, which will then be discussed in Parliament. We will be working out our procedure for consultation after Christmas and there will be a full discussion at that time.


Mr. Speyer:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a series of questions pertaining to the refusal of the work permit for John Dexter. The minister said certain things in answer to my friend, the hon. member from Perth, with which I agreed. He is correct when he said that in the Immigration Act there is a requirement to see whether any Canadian citizen can do the job adequately for which purpose it was designed.
There is also a philosophy within the regulations and within the discretion to promote the free movement of exceptional international talent. Sometimes there is a collision between these two values. In statements both inside and outside the House, the minister stated that in his judgment, and it is his judgment that is absolutely paramount in this case, there was not an adequate search made for a successor to Robin Phillips.
I would like the minister to reply, in some detail if he wishes, because there was an extensive investigation conducted by his department, stating the information that he acted upon in terms of whether there was an adequate search. In other words, I am after the facts which led the minister to his conclusion that there was an inadequate search.
We have known for some time that Robin Phillips would be leaving Stratford. A search was in fact conducted. The minister pointed out that a Canadian directorate had been appointed and their services were terminated. I would like the minister to state to the committee on the basis of the information he received how many Canadians were interviewed, and how many turned it down. Will he inform the Canadian people and myself of this, because I do not know the facts? I would like to know the facts upon which he arrived at his conclusion. I ask the minister to be detailed in telling us the facts upon which he came to the conclusion the board did not make a proper search.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 will try to answer that question. It is difficult in some cases because the facts which came from the board were confusing. It was not certain at all over the 18 months the hon. member speaks of who was contacted and whether they were offered the same conditions as Mr. Dexter or what kind of approach was made. Many people who might have been available were disregarded out of hand without ever being contacted. Several of those who were contacted were offered different kinds of conditions. It was in

December 5, 1980
Supply
the time period prior to the time the directorate was established.
Perhaps the hon. member was not in the House when I replied to the previous member. I will repeat. At the point the Canadian directorate was fired or dismissed, no effort was made in any way, shape or form to contact any Canadian to offer him or her the job. Mr. Dexter was already waiting in the wings, to use a theatrical expression. There was no effort to contact any Canadian at that point in time.


Chris Speyer: I do not think anyone would disagree with the minister's conclusion that Mr. Dexter was, to use the minister's words, in the wings at the time the Canadian directorate was terminated. My question is, before they were hired, how many Canadians had been asked and had been offered contracts? Will the minister please tell the names of these people who were offered contracts to assume the directorship at Stratford.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 do not believe it is up to me to offer that information to the hon. member. That is information within the knowledge of the board of governors. It is something they may want to keep privileged. If the hon. member wants information, I suggest he talk to the board of governors. 1 simply tell him that I consulted a number of sources, among them the board of governors as well as other organizations and other people. On the basis of all that information, I came to my decision. If the hon. member wants that information from the board of governors, I am sure they will be prepared to receive his inquiry.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in what the board of directors did. I am interested in the information upon which the minister acted in exercising his judgment. It may have been proper, it may have been improper. 1 am entitled to the exact information with regard to what the board of directors did on the basis of the report that was given to the minister. Will the minister give us the factual information with respect to enticing or asking other Canadians to take over the festival directorship over the period of 18 months? Who was approached? Were there significant contractual problems? Were the offers acceptable? We would like to know the information the minister acted upon in reaching his decision, not what the board did?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had made my position clear to the hon. member. I told him the reason for making the decision, namely, that there was no search undertaken by the directorate. If the hon. member wants to go back into history prior to that time, he is welcome to do so. I invite him to talk to the board. As minister, I have the responsibility to check a number of sources. If the hon. member wants to make him own search, I would invite him to do that.


Chris Speyer: I submit it is the height of unfairness when a minister in the House on two separate occasions squarely blames the board for an inadequate search for Canadian talent and then refuses to disclose the information upon which he made his decision. I can think of nothing more irresponsible.
Why will he not make the facts available upon which he made his decision? I am not interested in his conclusion. I am interested in the facts that led to his conclusion so that the Canadian people can decide whether the minister was right or wrong. It is a question of preference. Everyone will not agree. However, we are entitled to the facts upon which the investigation was undertaken by his ministry and what caused him to arrive at that conclusion.
I would like to ask a broader question having to do with the free movement of international talent. I will focus on exceptional international talent. Is there a comprehensive policy for the minister in exercising his discretion to deny an application by one exceptional artist and grant a permit to another. The other day I asked the minister about a person such as Peter Ustinov who came for a limited stay to play King Lear. Obviously he is an actor of great capacity. He was granted a work permit. Why was a man of artistic value such as John Dexter not allowed the same? Is it the ad hoc whim of the minister or is there some type of comprehensive policy to deal with artists?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 simply refer the hon. member to Hansard and the answer given at that time. When somebody is coming for a particular term and is engaged for a theatrical performance, a work permit is applied for and a judgment is made. The permit may or may not be issued. Where there is a position that has a higher degree of permanency, such as full artistic director where the work permit applied for is for a full year, a more extensive search is made. If the hon. member would like to read the regulations in that area, I invite him to do so and he will get the full details.


Chris Speyer: I wish to ask the minister another question because there are not many tentacles within the discretion that is exercised. We know that in the sport area in Canada, there has been a great deal of controversy concerning Canadian quarterbacks. In my province there is the case of James Bone from the University of Western Ontario, an outstanding Canadian quarterback. According to the findings of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, he did not get a fair chance in the CFL. When young men such as Scott Mallender or Jamie Bone, both of exceptional ability, wish to play quarterback in the CFL, they must compete against talent from foreign sources. When issuing permits to athletes from offshore will the minister take this into consideration as he did in the case of John Dexter? Will he take into consideration that there are exceptional Canadians who might play quarterback on CFL teams but, because of the unfairness of the regulations, they are not given an adequate chance. The minister's decision in the Dexter case gives rise to many implications. I want to know whether there is a comprehensive policy dealing with entertainers or artists or whether it is done at the ad hoc whim of the minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the implications are in the eyes of the beholder. The hon. member is in danger of building up a series of fanciful castles in the sky to satisfy his own time allotment. The fact is that by making those
December 5, 1980

comparisons they simply are comparing apples to oranges or, as in this case, football players and artistic directors. I would point out to the hon. members, in case he has never tried out for an athletic team, particularly in the professional sense, there are Canadians on the field competing at the same time. It is my observation that in the CFL there is not only a Canadian quota requirement-that is one reason I suppose why we have superior football clubs in the west due to better coaching of Canadian home-brewed players-but on the field itself the competition is equal. If a particular coach or judge or management body uses bias or discrimination, that causes concern which, again, the board of directors should be taking up with them. The fact is, competition is there and the access is there. In the case of Mr. Dexter there was not even access provided.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Chairman, I think with respect to the question of quarterbacks in the CFL the minister has demonstrated his vast ignorance of that subject. The matter was before the Ontario Human Rights Commission and there is no doubt as to the findings of that commission. In that case there was a sense of discrimination against Jamie Bone and damages were awarded. If the minister is not even sensitive to that, I do not understand how he can be sensitive to matters pertaining to artists. I conclude on this matter by stating that on Wednesday and again today the minister has failed to disclose the facts upon which this case was decided. We know that every case depends on the particular facts that give rise to it. The minister has categorically blamed the board-he may be right or wrong-but he refuses to disclose the information upon which he acts.
I asked the minister the other day about the report of his officials when it reached his desk after the intensive investigation which was promised. There was no answer forthcoming. He said he assumed responsibility. He is right. He does assume responsibility, but he has a responsibility to say what the officials recommend in terms of the facts and not the conclusions drawn. It is disgraceful that we have a minister of the Crown who makes assertions against very important and respected men and women in communities next to mine. The minister refuses to tell the facts upon which he made those decisions.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat curious that the hon. member has not been able to absorb the facts which I have given him.


Chris Speyer: You have given us nothing.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I have told the hon. member quite clearly several times, although he obviously was unable to hear. The facts were that at the time at which there was an opening for the position of artistic director following the firing of a director, there was only one person considered and that was Mr. Dexter who is not a Canadian. That is fact, Mr. Chairman. It is the fact upon which the decision was based. There was no effort made, not a finger lifted, not a phone call
Supply
no letter or advertisement to provide any opportunity for anyone else-


Chris Speyer: What about before that?


Lloyd Axworthy: We are talking about the position that was filled and then opened. Let us hope that the hon. member is able to understand that secret. I do not wish to explain the sequence to him, but there was a directorate, they were dismissed, another person was hired and that was Mr. Dexter. No search was made.


Chris Speyer: Why don't you tell the whole story?


Miss Begin:: Listen.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact simply stated is that the hon. member is totally and completely unprepared to listen to the facts.


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part once again this week in the debate on the Department of Employment and Immigration. First I would like to congratulate the minister and his department for their excellent work in my area of Manicouagan because as a whole the department performs relatively well. I might add in passing, since the minister is also responsible for the office on the Status of Women in Manicouagan, that two women are managers of the Canada Manpower centres, namely Mrs. Bujold in Port-Car-tier and Mrs. Pelchat in Sept-!les. The person responsible for the community programs of Canada is Mrs. Georgette Desjardins who does outstanding work. I think that hon. members in the House often have occasion to adopt a more or less critical or even negative attitude. At this stage, it is proper to state just the same that things are going well and that the people there are doing an excellent job.
Still it stands to reason that an overly large riding such as Manicouagan experiences some problems and I think it is difficult for the department officials to understand, no matter who is minister. Just the same it remains an area which is difficult to identify or at least it is rather difficult to define the problems since in that same constituency there are not two places alike, there is not a town or a village that has similar problems.
I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is doing an excellent job and with whom we have friendly relations. He is prepared to listen to us at any time. I can certify in my case that he can be reached day or night.
I should like to put another direct question about the extension program aimed at the Havre-Saint-Pierre area up to Blanc-Sablon. The main office is located in Sept-Iles while another important office is located in Baie-Comeau. East of

December 5, 1980
Supply
Sept-Iles, over a stretch of 450 miles, the most important town is Havre-Saint-Pierre. We have a branch office in Havre-Saint-Pierre and that town is located 150 miles east of Sept-iles and there ends the road. Past Havre-Saint-Pierre there is another 350-mile stretch without roads, along which there are 14 Anglophone hamlets, and a few with adjoining Indian reserves. The problem at this point is that the people who want to phone or meet the representatives of the department, either at Havre-Saint-Pierre or at Sept-Iles, can travel only by plane or by boat, seeing there are no roads. The program has now existed for two or three years; it has cost the department $120,000 to keep a branch office at Havre-Saint-Pierre and have a few agents along the coast.
I ask the minister to review the program completely or that part of the program in order to institutionalize it so that henceforth Havre-Saint-Pierre can be considered as a full-fledged manpower centre, and there can be project officers here and there along the coast. That is very important, and I would even ask the minister to consider the point of view of the manpower centre manager at Sept-Iles, Mrs. Pelchat, whom I spoke of previously. It is imperative that there be consultation in preparing the program to ensure that it really takes into account particular local circumstances. That covers my first question.
The second question deals with Canada Works or community development projects. We should stop changing names every year and settle for one name to give us a chance to know what we are talking about. Those programs are of basic importance to the people back home because we have managed to build up a lot of community services, buildings, wharves to launch boats, public parks, all of which are concrete achievements of great social advantage and public benefit. Still, we have a problem right now because Quebec is opposed to any construction unless it meets the standards of OCQ, and also because the salary paid on community development projects in Canada is $4.50 an hour, while the Office de Construction du Quebec wages are set at $10 to $12 an hour; this means that it is no longer possible for us to work on construction projects.
So that the program does not go haywire, so to speak, and lead nowhere, I think we should accept fewer applications but increase the amounts, so that we get more concrete results. In my area, that is basic. I wish the north shore, which I represent, were considered somewhat apart from other Quebec regions, because the type of building we do there is quite basic. On that point I would ask the minister to get in touch with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to indicate to him that it is his responsibility to look after wharves and that he should not delegate that responsibility to you and do things to save money.
Last year, when we were in opposition, I said the same thing to the then minister, Mr. Atkey, and Mr. LeBlanc, who was listening, gave tremendous applause. I would therefore urge him to swallow the same medicine, because the department
has a role to play and should not replace or substitute itself for another. I would like each-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. Would the hon. member please address the chairman of the committee.


André Maltais: Mr. Chairman, if the minister and his officials are listening, all I can say is thumbs up!
As far as Canada Works projects are concerned, the amount could stay the same, but the number of projects should be decreased so that we get more complete and more concrete projects, with salaries in accordance with Quebec standards and so that our community framework remains top quality. A third important point that I would like to emphasize is the need for information. People are not aware of the regulations governing the mobility or moving programs, and when in good faith they report to manpower centres to apply for a job in this or that part of the country they have found and for which they would get paid such and such salary, they are told by the official that there is section 2 or 4 which states that they must not have started working and that, unfortunately, they have been working for 15 days already. On the other hand, they must not earn more than a maximum salary. These people realize immediately that they are not eligible.
It is a well known fact, however, that the procedure for professionals is quite different, since they are there on a trial basis and are therefore in no need to start; on the other hand, they agree to a six-month contract with a lower salary, which admits a playful interpretation, so that qualified workers are privileged over untrained workers who may really be needy. This happens all the time at the manpower centres, whether or not you know the officials. In charge of student employment for three summers in my own area, I have learned how far it is possible to go in the area of regulations and especially interpretation. I wish the department would look into this and provide on television more information concerning the regulations truly affecting the users. I suggest the department's contribution leaves much to be desired, as far as the methodology and the application of regulations directly affecting the users is concerned.
1 should like also to deal with another point and to make again the same recommendation to the minister, because the process is slow, as I indicated to the Minister of Transport last Wednesday. Six months ago already, I told the department that it should appoint a judge on the arbitration board on the north shore. That was six months ago and he has not been appointed yet. What would it take to have someone appointed in less than six months? 1 wonder, Mr. Minister. Red tape? The Privy Council? What is going on? The department must bring someone from Quebec City to Sept-Iles and pay for his travelling and lodging expenses. That is a shameful waste of public funds that could be avoided by proceeding some other way. I am not saying it is your fault, Mr. Minister. Nor anybody else's. I am not putting anybody on trial. But those
December 5, 1980

are the facts. Six months later the person recommended as judge on the arbitration board for the north shore area has still not been appointed. We think that is an important matter to which we require a prompt solution. Most of all I would not like this to happen again. It is not enough to criticize a situation, it should not happen again. And often the public servants should follow up on the matters we raise with them. What is infuriating is that we write letters and make appeals that remain unanswered. I should like the public servants who are responsible to the minister to tell him about particular cases that need to be brought up in the Privy Council. I receive an average of 45 calls a day and about 100 letters. There is no way I can deal with all those cases. I think there should be someone in the department whose task would be to follow up on the matters we raise with him.
I would like to bring something else to the attention of the minister. 1 do not know how much time I have left. Time goes by so quickly. However I would like to make a recommendation about a bureaucratic administration which is extremely rigid and callous. Should we not create in manpower centres the position of local or regional ombudsman, i mean one or three persons, more or less like what we in Quebec call the services-I forget the name-with regard to the ombudsman you simply have to appear before somebody who is usually a judge and present your case, this costs $5 or $10 and then you state your arguments directly and you get-it is the small claims court, that is what it is called. There would be one or three persons who would be hired on a full-time basis and when someone having dealt with your department would feel dissatisfied, not on acount of the Canada Works program, but because of regulations regarding unemployment insurance or regarding his search for a job, this person could go and see these three individuals whose main task would be to make a decision and within 24 hours the case would be dealt with.
What is now difficult for claimants is that all answers are computerized and very often they do not take any account of special situations and cause even more problems to the person in trouble than they solve. If the system could at least be humanized and each case explained with a judgement given within 24 hours, this would take away much of the frustration that now exists. I am not saying that another structure should be created, but simply that someone on top should listen every week to the complaints of claimants. There could perhaps be a deterrent fee of $5 to $10 for each appearance before the board which would be responsible for making rulings within 24 hours, and this would in my opinion take away much of the frustration of the present system and even clarify some of the rulings that are made regularly.
I would like in closing to note that the constituency of Manicouagan has received over $15 million within the last ten years under the Local Initiatives Program, Canada Works, Young Canada Works and community development projects. For instance, several villages received more money under the
Supply
Canada Works program in one year than the annual budget of the municipality. This program is essential in our area. Of course it should be reviewed and amended as any other program, but it should be maintained and even extended and perhaps better adapted to various areas, which is very important in our case.
I have a few minutes left. The people of Schefferville, Gagnon and Fairmount, who live 385 miles north of Sept-iles, cannot call the Sept-iles manpower centre free of charge if they have complaints or comments to make or if they want to ask for explanations. This is surprising, and it is the same everywhere else in Canada. If we look at the phone book, we see that the only department which allows collect calls or calls through the Zenith exchange is the Department of National Revenue. In any phone book, as soon as we have 300 or even 100 people in a village, it is written: Government of Canada, Zenith Exchange, National Revenue of Canada. These people are easy to contact. But for other departments, it is unthinkable. Therefore I would ask department officials to reconsider this very important problem which creates gross injustice. It must be corrected because I live in a communication constituency, a transport constituency, and I believe there is no reason why we should have to pay for calls made to officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration.
I also wish to congratulate Mr. Jean Bouchard, director of the Department of Employment and Immigration, who did a beautiful job welcoming refugees, who was very active and should be set as an example, I suggest, for those officials who want to show initiative. I believe this must be pointed out, because unfortunately, employment security too often enables people to remain idle, and to wait for other people to serve them instead of being at their service. 1 would ask departmental officials to ascertain whether the human aspect is really present in offices, whether some efforts are really being made.
I went to the Sept-iles office, and as a whole, the situation there is relatively good, but if you go to those in Quebec City or Montreal, you really feel you are a number among others, which, I suggest, is very depressing for people who have to visit them. I conclude with these remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate receiving immediate answers if possible, but above all I would appreciate written ones, since we will be discussing this again next year.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has supplied us with a number of very useful suggestions. As he suggests, we could supply him with written answers to many of the recommendations he has made. I take particular note of the proposal for an ombudsman which I find to be a very attractive idea. I know how close and accessible he is to our parliamentary secretary, so I will ask the parliamentary secretary to follow up that particular suggestion and give us a report.

December 5, 1980
Supply
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time I have remaining?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Four minutes to go.


André Maltais: I would also like, Mr. Chairman, to emphasize the significant contribution made by your department to the Port Cartier area when ITT closed down. The department acted with rather amazing speed to help directly the people who were in immediate need. This has to be emphasized, because in such areas morale dips very low at times, and this was a severe blow. I must pay tribute to the department officials who acted without delay.
I would now like to know what can be done in the foreseeable future for the people in Port Cartier. I already wrote to the minister to ask whether the man in charge of the manpower centre advisory group should not be integrated with the Port Cartier office, the gentleman who worked between ITT and the manpower centre. In my view, that official did an outstanding job. He has a trememdous knowledge of the whole ITT situation, and it would be important in my view that he be integrated into the department because very often I have had to contact people in the Port Cartier manpower centre and refer to the ITT file, and not too many people know the case as well as a certain Mr. Gilles Larouche over there. And quite honestly 1 am not aware of the internal department mechanism to ascertain this, but it is my opinion it should be integrated to the Port Cartier staff^__because this is quite important. This is my last remark. I would appreciate very much that you consider this, and I would appreciate receiving a response to my requests including that for Port Cartier.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for his commendation and his kind words about our officials and I will make sure that they are passed on to them. We are also prepared to look at the recommendation he made to see if it is possible to carry it out.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to participate in this debate very briefly. I want to bring publicly to the minister's attention a matter which has been before me now for almost two months and one about which, unfortunately, I spoke to the minister way back in October. At that time I wrote the minister spelling out the problem of a refugee family from Vietnam who had applied to come to Canada together with the family of a brother who were also refugees. They had been sponsored by two separate Roman Catholic churches. The first family was brought over as a result of work done by Saint Michael's, and the second family was being brought over by Holy Rosary. Unfortunately, in the camp-and I can only guess at the circumstances which prevailed there-the family applied to come to both Canada and the United States, although they had been told not to do so. However, I can readily understand that in the deplorable conditions in which they found themselves, they saw it as an insurance guarantee that they might
at least get out of the camp in which they were staying. They were accepted by both Canada and the United States. However, the transportation to the United States turned up first. At first they hesitated about getting on the U.S. aircraft simply because they really wanted to come to Canada. They were told by the authorities in the camp, however, that unless they got on their airplane to the United States, they might be prevented from ever leaving the camp. As a consequence, they did as I am sure any of us would do under the circumstances. They boarded the American aircraft and ultimately arrived in Atlanta, Georgia. The very industrious people from Holy Rosary tracked them down, made contact with them and again expressed their willingness and desire to bring that family to Prince Edward-Hastings.
It was at that point that I contacted the minister and, as was not unreasonable, was asked to write a letter. On October 22 1 wrote a letter giving ail the details and the name of the family, which unfortunately I could not begin to pronounce. I wrote about the fact that the family was in Atlanta, that the officials in Atlanta were holding that family in abeyance so far as settling them was concerned until such time as the Canadian authorities could deal with the matter, because obviously there would be co-operation between them. Having done that, I myself subsequently contacted people in the minister's office two or three times a week. Usually we deal with a different person each time. I received only one letter back from the minister which was a month later, on November 13. It was the usual note saying that the minister had received the inquiry and would write shortly. Again that was almost a month ago and we still have not settled the case of this poor family.
Today we had a call from the department, from another person in the department, asking if we could give them more details. May I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the department has all the details. The family is in Atlanta, they were originally destined to come to Belleville, there is a family in the church of the Holy Rosary waiting to look after them in Belleville, the family wants to come, the authorities in the States are prepared to let them come, and the people in Belleville are prepared to drive down to Atlanta and drive them back to Canada. They have been down to Atlanta once already and have spoken to the family. I do not know what more we can do to clear up this very simple misunderstanding.
I am told that the reason the Canadian authorities are procrastinating is that once the family left the camp in Viet Nam and came to the United States, they were no longer under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. That is the excuse we have been given, but surely to goodness compassion would indicate that the family arrived in the United States simply because they were desperate to leave a completely untenable situation. Surely common sense and decency would indicate that when everything is ready for them here, they should be allowed to come. Perhaps we can send another family back to the States, I really do not know. I do not mean to be facetious about this, but surely in some things that are as straightforward and simple as this the minister could, with the
December 5, 1980

stroke of a pen, make provision for this family to come to Canada to be with their relatives. There is a home for them, there is employment for them, and everything is ready and waiting for them. I wonder why we cannot have that happen.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member if there has been some delay. We have been looking at the case, we have tried to get the information that is available. We transferred the file that we had down to the Atlanta office where we have an immigration officer employed, and they have been dealing with the U.S. authorities there and the family itself.
However, the case is not quite as simple as the hon. member makes it out to be. What did take place is that the family applied to come to both countries-


John Raymond Ellis: I said that.


Lloyd Axworthy: -it was accepted by both countries, but it did not tell the other country that it was applying to the other.


John Raymond Ellis: I said that.


Lloyd Axworthy: As a result, there was some confusion. The difficulty is this, that now they are landed in the United States and have been accepted, they no longer qualify as refugees.


John Raymond Ellis: I said that.


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member may have said it, but it means that there is a different requirement under the law. There is a law that has to be administered. For me to sign the permit by a stroke of the pen would not give them the same kind of permanency as they would have otherwise if they came under another category. The minister's permit is only good for a year and must be extended year after year. If we could try to provide a more permanent way for them to come, we would try to do so. I am simply saying to the hon. member that it is not quite as easy as signing a minister's permit. That would not provide them with the permanent settlement they desire. There is the other point, that if we take this family, it denies another refugee family still in the camps the right to come to either the United States or Canada. It might not be a critical consideration, but we are trying to work out a means for the family to come to Belleville under a more permanent settlement, rather than the temporary one of the minister's permit. If the member was simply asking for that, it can be done, but certainly it is not the preferable solution under the circumstances.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but what I am hearing is bureaucratic red tape. If a family came from Vietnam or from some refugee camp on an aircraft directly to Canada, there would be absolutely no problem. We are talking about blood brothers, close relatives; these people are close families. If these people had boarded an aircraft and come directly to Canada, there would be absolutely no problem. But, they got here part way on a different aircraft. They stopped along the
Supply
way, not because they wanted to, but they were desperate to get out of the refugee camp. Now they would like to continue their trip, and their trip can be continued. The people from Holy Rosary will take the same station wagon, which they have used two or three times to visit them, and pick them up. They will put them in the station wagon and drive them to Belleville where their family, a home and everything else is waiting. Surely to goodness somewhere in the United States they could find one other family, if they want to take them into Atlanta, Georgia.
Surely it does not disrupt this confounded bureaucracy that much that these people, out of desperation, travelled a few hundred miles off track in a trip of some 10,000 miles. Surely it is not a big problem. I am not suggesting the use of the minister's permit. I frankly do not know all the ways and means by which this can happen, but it seems to me it is very, very simple. These people have been delayed almost two months by nothing other than bureaucratic red tape. The kind, generous and proper thing to do would be to reunite the family before Christmas as they were originally. I do not know how it can be done or what permits should be used; I really do not care. But if they could be brought from a plane which would have landed in Montreal to Belleville, they can be brought from a plane which landed in Atlanta, Georgia, to Belleville. It is that simple.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, there is no dispute between the hon. member and I. We would like to accommodate him, but it was not a simple mistake of getting on the wrong plane. The family applied to the American and Canadian authorities. The option of the United States came first. It was not a matter of them wandering on to a plane, being at the wrong place and stopping at the wrong place. They deliberately chose to go to the United States; they had applied to go there. The other part of their family decided to go to Canada, and now they are separated.
I will try to find a solution, but the easy solution recommended by the hon. member of issuing a permit is not the best one because it provides no permanency. If I can find another way, I will. I have told the member that I will try, but the fact is they have now landed in the United States, they are wards of the United States and they are no longer refugees. In a sense they are landed immigrants in the United States which means that by our act they must go through another requirement. I will try to work it out, but I ask for the patience of the member so that it can be done properly, rather than forcing them into a temporary solution which would only continue their impermanent state. I think that would be the last thing the refugee family would want, that is, to be battered around by two governments. We are working on it; we will find a solution.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to carry on for so long, but I should like to indicate three things. Yes, the family applied to two countries. I have seen pictures and have heard described the manner in which these people are required to live in refugee camps. If I were in their shoes, no matter what the
5432

December 5, 1980
Supply
officials said, I would apply to 18 dozen different countries. However, I have checked the fact that they were accepted by Canada. They had also been accepted by the United States and when the United States aeroplane arrived first, some bureaucrat told them: "You must get on that plane or you are out of luck; you won't ever get out of here". So, why would they not board the plane?
I have talked to the United States authorities, and they have agreed to waive and overlook the fact that they came into Atlanta and that they applied to two countries. Certainly it is against the regulations, but it is a shame. As I said, if I were in their shoes 1 would apply to more than two countries.
I do not think I am requesting anything that is very special. 1 do not know all the rules and regulations; 1 would not pretend to. But 1 am confident that in the past two months we could have found a simple way of ignoring the fact that they got to the wrong town on the way here, because they were accepted by Canada.
At least they got to North America, and I can assure the minister that the good people of Holy Rosary would be prepared to see them the rest of their journey.


J. Michael Forrestall: Fix that poor family up; don't be so cruel!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Chairman, my opening remarks are almost directly related to those of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. Last week I was thrilled and privileged to see a solution to a situation not unlike the one to which the member referred. In St. John's parish in Saskatoon a complicated situation was worked out by the minister's department. I know the people there. It amounted to a different situation. Apparently a Greek ship picked up part of a family, which meant that they were destined to go to Greece. Then another member of the same family who had arrived in Saskatoon earlier found a way to solve the problem. I am sure the situation referred to a moment ago will be resolved.
I appreciate the difficulties which the hon. minister must encounter many times when he is confronted with the problem of refugees in the world today. I am sure he must be torn between what his heart would like to do and what the law says he must do. I do not know how the minister is able to handle the situation. It must be a very difficult tension under which to live.
In past months I have dealt with the minister in various difficult refugee situations and I know he has found ways to handle many of them. I thank him for changing with the stroke of a pen the futures of persons, families and generations of a family. It is a very difficult power with which he lives and I thank him for addressing these most difficult questions.
However, I should like to speak about the general problem of refugees in the world and address my remarks in perhaps a more critical manner to a particular area which I feel the policy for refugees does not confront adequately. As recently as this week, an article in The Citizen indicated the number of refugee people in the world, which I am sure the minister and his department are well aware, is constantly climbing. Not
long ago ten million was given as the number of people who, through no basic fault of their own, and certainly not because they wanted it, became refugees. The recent article in The Citizen to which I allude indicates that the number of refugees in the world is now close to 15 million. We as citizens on this planet must face that kind of reality-the reality that the number of refugees in the world almost equals the number of citizens in this country. It is appropriate in situations like this that members of the House of Commons and people across this country appreciate that many of us arrived here indirectly as a result of the admission of refugees into this country. One becomes a refugee as a result of some political, religious or social upheaval when no longer allowed to live in peace in the country of their birth.
I have had the experience of living in another country for a number of years. I learned the language, the culture and the ways. I appreciate the difficulty this kind of transition causes. However, I did it freely, without force. I did it of my own will because I wanted to do it. Still, I found it difficult, even with all those things on my side. However, when a person is uprooted through political force, by religious upheaval or whatever and is forced to leave his roots behind I think we can appreciate the tension, sorrow and agony he must face. Yet we will find if we check into our ancestry that many of us sitting in this House of Commons today are here because at one time our country allowed a refugee family to land here. We must really take this fact to heart when we face the great reality today of there being 15 million refugees without a home and without a future unless the doors to our country, if I may call them that, are open and we say to them "Come on in".
When I began my remarks to the minister I said that he must live with the tension which is created by the law, which says we can take these and not those. He lives with the tension of having to make that choice. What are we to do in the face of this problem? The boat people from southeast Asia certainly assumed a high profile in the minds of Canadians and North Americans in general. As the minister pointed out in his opening remarks, Canada has accepted 60,000 people from that flood-as opposed to 15 million, 60,000 is literally a drop in the bucket. It was a good experience for Canadians. We saw that we could handle that kind of problem. As I said, last Saturday night 1 was associated with this family coming into Saskatoon. I realized they had left a tropical climate and were coming into 30-degree below zero weather. Knowing what they were going through, at least the social and emotional tensions, I saw the community of St. John's parish in Saskatoon opening up their arms and saying "Come on in; the door is open." It was a thrilling event.
I would like now to direct my remarks to an issue of policy. We have in place a policy which seems to say that if you have been a refugee because of communist oppression, real or unreal, you are welcome. But our response to victims of fascist oppression has been much more equivocal. I must suggest that there is a sistematic bias in that policy. In their masterful two-volume study, "The Political Economy of Human Rights",
December 5, 1980

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman present a devastating expose of this selective compassion using unimpeachable sources, for example, amnesty reports and other painstaking documentation.
Speaking specifically of communist Indo-China, Chomsky and Herman show how refugees there can be used rather dishonestly by western countries for their own political purposes. At the same time, pleas for asylum from Latin America or South Africa evoke a faint response, or even a negative one. To some extent the figures on our total refugee intake, which includes both government and private sponsorships, speak for themselves. In 1979 Canada took in 27,740 refugees all told. In 1980 this figure is expected to top 40,000. As of August 31 of this year, 31,241 refugees had been admitted from the following principal sources: 28,000 from Indo-China, 2,695 from Eastern Europe, 108 from Latin America and 66 from Cuba. In 1981 the government plans to sponsor, in addition to about 5,000 private sponsorships, the following numbers of refugees: 8,000 from Indo-China, which I understand is down from 10,000 this year; 4,000 from eastern Europe, which is up from 3,000 in 1980; and 1,000 from Latin America and the Caribbean, which is up 500 from 1980. One notes that although the Latin American quota for this year is 500 only 108 had arrived as of August 31. One also notes that the flow of refugees from Latin America is a trickle compared with the flood from Indo-China in the last two years. Yet for more than 15 years there has been massive and savage repression to the point of genocide in Latin America as country after country has fallen under the iron fist of military dictators, many of whom were open admirers of the European fascism of the thirties. In the tiny country of El Salvador there will be 10,000 or more political murders this year alone. As the news reported this morning three Maryknoll sisters from the United States and one social worker were murdered yesterday outside the airport as two of them tried to come back into the country. It is estimated that one in every 50 Uruguayans is or has been a political prisoner since the military came to power in 1968.
The point I make is that a very real, vicious oppression is present in the countries there. I have had a great deal of experience in that part of the world. It seems we have a blind spot when it comes to the free world or countries which are sort of lumped under the term "free world". We find it hard to accept that capitalistic and pro-western regimes can be the perpetrators of totalitarian repression, even when there is a mass of evidence that these are regimes in the Third World, not the communist bloc, which torture and assassinate their opponents. I think there is a solid basis for what I am saying as proved by Amnesty International and many other international groups. They have presented facts about the destruction of human rights in those countries. In cases of pro-western regimes which are known as human rights violators, we seem to scrutinize very carefully each individual application for political asylum. We seem to treat the evidence of political persecution with extreme scepticism and seldom, if ever, give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. Quotas for refugees from these dark corners of this misnamed "free world" are
Supply
kept low and strictly adhered to. Such bureaucratic scrupulousness goes by the board in cases of refugees from communism where the propaganda value is clear and immediate.
There is a group in Regina-and I am sure the minister is aware of these groups right across Canada-which has prepared a brief on behalf of the Chilean refugees. It points out the great difficulty in getting refugee status. It is still an oppressive situation in Chile. The Amnesty International group in Saskatoon has been attempting to get a family from Chile. To the credit of the minister's department, the family has finally been cleared to come to Canada. Just today I was asked by this group to tell the minister that when it finally came time for the family to leave they were refused exit because they did not have the air fare. The people involved have not been able to get the air fare. The ordinary policy applied to refugees does not seem to be the same policy used in Chile. What is Canada's policy on countries in Central America and Latin America with regard to refugee status? Is there a special way of looking at these countries?
I appreciate that the RCMP demands clearance. But trying to get clearance of that sort from the police in Latin America would be like a Jewish family getting a visa in Germany in 1940. It is not just that simple if there is any political involvement, which can be as little as expressing the view that one would like a democratic government so that one might contribute to the ruling of a country. Would the minister tell me our policy in Latin America?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to respond to the questions of the hon. member because they need some clarification. There is no difference in our attitude toward Latin American refugees as compared to those from other regions. We do not recognize any preferred group or region. We try to relate our refugee program to where the demand and the need are greatest. At the time of the problem in Chile, Canada opened its doors as wide for Chileans as for the Vietnamese refugees. Close to 8,000 Chileans have settled in Canada, and this is proportionate to the numbers who came out of the country as compared to the boat people. We provided just as much opportunity for Chilean refugees to come to Canada as for Vietnamese refugees or eastern Europeans. There is no policy which gives special recognition to one region over another.
At times we face certain difficulties. One such difficulty is that Latin Americans, mainly for historical and geographical reasons, do not seem to relate as readily to Canada as do other groups. For example, during the exodus from Cuba last year we were prepared to accept 300 refugees fleeing from that country, but it took several months to fill that quota because they did not want to come to Canada. Most of their friends, relatives and connections are in the United States and they chose to go to that country. Even though there was this opportunity, very few Cubans availed themselves of the program. 1 believe we have received only 250 or 270 Cubans in that program.

December 5, 1980
Supply
With regard to the visa problem in Chile, I can assure the hon. member that since 1 became the Minister of Immigration, no problem took up more of my time in the early months than examining in great detail the arguments put forward by church organizations, Amnesty International and others. They felt that the visa regulations put forward by the previous administration were a hindrance to people who wanted to escape from Chile and come to Canada. We listened to both sides of this case, including the points of views of officials, embassies and other sources, which said that the matter was quite open and that there were no problems. I spent many hours poring over documents on the case. I have never come across a case which had absolutely no common ground in fact or in anything else, other than in some of the disputes I have had with members of the Tory party, most of which has left leaving behind only its corpus guard.
An independent fact-finding team went to Chile last summer. My parliamentary secretary, who has also left me, was on that team. This team had no prejudices and was simply asked to examine the situation. It interviewed a wide variety of individuals, including members of different political groups and the Vicaria, which is the major refugee organization in the country. After this very careful examination the team concluded that in fact there was no major problem for someone who wanted to apply for refugee status through our embassy and come to Canada. That judgment and observation was quite independent and objective in its point of view and the decision was to maintain the regulations as they existed. On this basis, it was not a matter of our disregarding the case which was made. We spent a great deal of time and considered carefully the arguments put forward before we came to our decision.
We deliberately made certain choices in setting refugee levels this year in order to provide for a 100 per cent increase in the reserve allocated for refugees coming from Latin America. We also extended the contingency fund in order to respond to particular situations and to give us the flexibility to absorb more people without being assigned to any one country. We have undertaken special negotiations with the province of Quebec because of what is called the Cullen-Couture agreement which allowed us to set up the arrangement whereby we would accept 3,000 Haitians who had arrived in the country illegally. Because the province of Quebec was prepared to take that group, we were prepared to land them here.
What I have said goes to indicate that in most cases we have been responsive and interested as much in the refugee problem in Latin America as in southeast Asia and in eastern Europe. We must take a new look at the refugee problem around the world. I undertook some discussions with the American government in the summer in order to establish a new approach to some of the major refugee problems around the world. Unfortunately, the administration has now changed and negotiations will have to be started over again. I hope the new administration will be as open and responsive as the last administration on the problem of refugees.
Our present approach to refugee problems is not totally satisfactory. I would hope that through the co-operation of my
colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and through working with the United Nations and other countries we will be able to provide a new approach in the next year or two to refugee problems.


Miss Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, during his remarks this morning, the minister referred to amendments to the Immigration Act in 1976. I would remind hon. members that the 1976 act did not amend the previous act, it replaced it. The 1976 act was a completely new act. It followed the appointment of a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which had travelled throughout Canada and heard witnesses on immigration policy.
The act included many recommendations from the special joint committee. I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration at the time the bill was referred to committee, and the committee worked on it long and hard. We heard witnesses and before the bill was approved there were 33 sessions. It was reported back to the House with approximately 100 amendments.
[DOT] <1640)
That committee worked with real commitment and an unusual lack of partisanship in an attempt to give Canada an immigration act that was fair and humane. There were often strong and deep divisions in the committee, not on party lines but rather on grounds of personal ideology or different opinions about how best to achieve a common goal of giving Canada an immigration act which would be fair and leave room for discretion and compassion in special circumstances.
The previous immigration act had not been amended for many years. The department was operating on accumulated jurisprudence, on regulations and, to a large extent, on internal directives. The language of the previous act was harsh and in some cases exclusionary, it was language that was not acceptable to modern ears.
Working on that committee, which operated with a very rare absence of partisanship, was one of the finest experiences of my life. Members from all sides of the House tried very hard to put aside party differences and to work as Canadians for the common good. They tried to produce an act where the rules were clear, public, and understandable; where there was also some flexibility and room for the exercise of discretion on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. They even insisted on seeing the draft regulations before reporting the bill, to ensure that these were compatible with the intent of the statute and the spirit in which the committee worked.
Today the minister referred to consultation with the provinces on levels of immigration. This is required under the new act. The committee considered it important to ensure that immigrants are welcomed appropriately and that services under provincial jurisdiction, such as schools, housing and so on, can comfortably accommodate new arrivals. The minister's remarks on consultation implied that this was working well, that it is more than pro forma. If that is so, all those involved are to be complimented.
December 5, 1980

1 have a number of concerns about the operation of the present act, an operation which is beginning to differ in some ways from the intent of the act as I remember it. The new act repealed the existing act, yet the minister referred to the 1976 act as having amended the earlier act. I find that his officials are continuing with practices which were begun under the earlier act. I have a number of questions about where this authority is derived from, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask all my questions at the same time, then perhaps the minister could reply at the end, rather than seriatim.
The first is the question of special status for retiring ambassadors. This practice grew up under the old act and 1 think it was sometimes abused. I know of one case where it was used to land a 35-year old consul who came back to Canada as a landed immigrant and was working within two months. This could hardly be regarded as retirement, but rather as queue jumping or being given special consideration. The new act has no special provision for retiring ambassarors, yet I understand that they are still treated in a special way because of tradition.
There are a number of other matters as well, Mr. Chairman. The interpretation of some regulations by officials seems to go considerably beyond what is written down. There is a regulation that allows Canadian citizens or landed immigrants to sponsor any relative once in a lifetime if they do not have a relative who falls within the normal sponsorable category. The regulation clearly refers to the position of the Canadian citizen, yet it is sometimes interpreted to mean that the person being sponsored must also be alone in the world. The person trying to sponsor under this provision sometimes runs into the difficulty of the prospective immigrant bringing in dependents. There is nothing whatsoever in the statute or regulations that calls for special treatment for this kind of sponsorship.
The regulations also refer to an immigration officer or a senior immigration officer requiring a visitor to post a bond. There is nothing in the act or regulations that ties the act of posting a bond to the place where the immigration officer works. Yet, because screening was traditionally done at the port of entry, some immigration staff now claim that the law requires them to ask for such bond at the point of entry only. Families who anticipate difficulties at the port of entry- perhaps because a visitor previously overstayed-and who try to prepay a bond, are told that this cannot be done and that the visitor must arrive at the port and take his chances on being sent back or allowed to post a bond.
1 would ask the minister why there is this rigidity. At what point is the authority divided between the port of entry staff and an immigration officer in an office, say, in downtown Toronto? Where does this practice come from? We are told it is tradition, but under which act-the present one or the one that was repealed?
I also have great concern about the extension of the use of program officers in posts overseas, a practice which seems to have been increasing in recent months. I find that this is contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter of the act. The act and the regulations refer to a visa officer making decisions about approving potential immigrants. Obviously powers can be dele-
Supply
gated and 1 can see some limited justification for having clerical work done by indigenous workers in posts abroad, but the increased use of program officers who are not Canadian, who have no commitment to Canada, to make decisions on who will come to Canada as a permanent resident, is a questionable practice to my mind. There may be reasons for this which I do not understand, and perhaps the minister will explain that later.
I am also concerned that officials take so little responsibility for delays caused by them, particularly in our posts overseas. Canadian citizens sponsoring parents, for instance, may find that the processing takes up to three years in some countries. If a brother or sister turns 21 before the parents are finally interviewed, he or she is ineligible to come in as a dependent, even thought the application is made in time. 1 think the date that the application was received, Mr. Chairman, should be the determinant-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: -rather than the date at which the officials get around to dealing with the case, especially since some delays overseas seem to be caused by program officers, not by Canadian staff.
Finally, when the act was proclaimed, the government of the day published it widely. Members of this House wanted openness. We wanted potential immigrants to know the terms of the act. The act also requires regulations to be published 30 days before implementation and it requires regulations to be presented in the House.
We had hoped, too, as members of this committee, that the department would keep their internal directives to a manageable book size which could be handed to prospective immigrants or their relatives. Mr. Chairman, in fact, at this point, only two years after operation, the department has two tomes which can be inspected but not removed. I do not know the reason for this but perhaps the minister will be able to tell me if he has this problem under advisement and whether he is hoping the original aim of making the Immigration Act simple and understandable is still an aim.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for her comments. It is very helpful to receive the advice of someone who was in at the birth of the act and who understands it so well. Her views have been very helpful, particularly to me because I was not in the House at the time and she has given me a better understanding of the reasons and the underlying principles in the act.
I agree with the hon. member that perhaps there is nothing more important in the immigration area than to make it as simple and as fair as possible. That is one of the reasons I established an internal task force two months ago which reports to me directly. It is made up primarily of lawyers and people who work in the area of regulations. They are to review the act from the point of view of regulatory procedures as well as to examine a wide variety of issues which would both speed

December 5, 1980
Supply
up the processing and ensure a much higher degree of fairness in the application of the law. Also, they are to see where there might be irregularities or eccentricities that have grown up in the application of the act.
One of the first things I will do is to refer the comments of the hon. member directly to that group and ask for a report so that I can make changes immediately after their review. Perhaps the hon. member would be prepared to spend some time with members of that task force and elaborate upon those points.
I will respond to some of the considerations and put them on the record. Perhaps we can provide more elaboration in a written response. But on the question of special status for ambassadors, as far as I know there is no special status for ambassadors. If there are cases where that has been so, I would like to hear them from the member and we will look into them.
On the question of the bonds, I am advised by my officials that that was an interpretation given to us by lawyers in the justice department. We will check to see if there cannot be more flexibility but we did ask for that interpretation.
On the question of program officers, that is an issue which has concerned me. There are very strict rules that we do not allow program officers in the embassies or consulates overseas to make decisions. They are there primarily to help in the processing of the paper work, which is fairly heavy. They are not supposed to make decisions, but there may be occasions where that has crept into the procedures. That is also being looked into to make sure there is a clear demarcation of responsibilities.
One of the difficulties we are experiencing as a result of the act which was passed, and I am not saying it was a direct cause, is that because of the change in the family class requirements there is a much greater need for documentation, particularly as to proof of age. To prove that someone is over and above that magic age of 21 in countries where there is limited documentation means checking birth records, voting records and other things. This certainly slows the whole process down inordinately. Therefore, there is difficulty in making sure that the act is administered in the way members of Parliament want it to and it does cause major backlogs. I agree that in some cases the backlogs are unacceptable but we are trying to clear that up now. We have received a special recommendation and I have approached cabinet to ask authorization for additional person employment years so that we can respond to that problem. But there is a consequence of having that particular act. Perhaps in discussions over the next year or two in the manpower committee, we may want to raise that issue with members so we can have a response as to whether or not the age requirement itself puts a heavier burden on the process and slows it down. There may be a better way of facilitating that.
Those are the short answers. I notice there is not much time left, but I will provide more detailed answers for the member to these specific questions and perhaps follow up with her, if
she is willing, by asking her to speak to members of the task force about the regulations we have established.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, we are running very short of time. Could the minister tell us how many man-years or person-years are created during the construction phase of one tar sands plant?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would have to get that information for the hon. member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, would the minister have any idea how many person-years are created throughout the 25-year life cycle of a tar sands plant operation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to get that information as well.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I am continually surprised by the minister. He is the minister from the west and he is the minister in charge of employment. Those are rather important factors to the west, to Ontario and to Quebec. I suggest to the minister that there are several millions of years of employment from that source. I hope that by Monday we will have answers to that question.
Can the minister tell me whether he is happy with the current policy of making people eligible for UIC benefits by registering at union hiring halls in the construction industry?


Lloyd Axworthy: That is presently a policy of this government, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell me whether union hiring halls are aware of all construction job vacancies in Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member might know, we do not have hiring halls in all provinces so there cannot be a totally national system.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, can the minister answer my question: are those union hiring halls which exist aware of all construction job vacancies in Canada on any given day?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I just answered the question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, if the minister answered the question-and Hansard shows he did not-could he answer it again?
Are all union hiring halls aware of all the construction job vacancies in Canada on any given day? More specifically, do the Canada Manpower centres, which are aware of those jobs, make union hiring halls aware of all job vacancies?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to the member previously, union hiring halls are aware of which jobs are available through the union system, but they are not extensive throughout the entire country nor are they aware of those jobs not on union sites.
December 5, 1980


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, the minister said earlier today that he was moving in the direction of creating a job searching possibility across the country where, through Canada Manpower centres, people seeking work would be aware of all job vacancies. Does the minister not intend to include the union hiring halls in that principle?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, we are putting in place the national job bank which will attempt to provide that mobility of information as well as mobility of people which will ensure that information is available. It is obviously accessible to anyone who wants to use it, including union organizations which run the hiring halls in certain provinces.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, over the weekend, would the minister examine the principle of allowing people to certify eligibility for UIC benefits when they are not aware of job vacancies? This runs counter to what I think the whole system is all about.
We have less than half a minute left, but I want to alert the minister to another series of questions which will come early
Supply
next week. Near the beginning of this debate, 1 made an interjection by way of a point of order in which I drew to the minister's attention that yesterday the Council of Social Development brought to the attention of the constitutional committee the possibility that he and his government can seek to enshrine in law the possibility that mobility in Canada could be severely damaged by the specific wording of the mobility rights section-that the social service system in this country might be severely damaged by the mobility rights section. I heard the minister indicate two or three times today that he is counting on that section to make the economic situation for the unemployed better. I hope he will read that section and that by Monday his head will be a little clearer about its potential.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

December 5, 1980


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1980
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance Parliamentary Secretary to
The Minister of State for Trade
Re: Tremus Industries Limited.
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills held on November 25th, 1980, the undersigned, being all the shareholders of Tremus Industries Limited, these presents declare:
1.	they are familiar with the procedures taken by Edward McGovern to revive Tremus Industries Limited;
2.	they consent with such procedures being taken;
3.	they agree to save the Crown, harmless from any claims which may result from the revival of Tremus Industries Limited.
Yours very truly,
Anabel McGovern Vincent H. McGovern Edward P. McGovern
November 26th, 1980
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance Parliamentary Secretary to
The Minister of State for Trade
Re: Socam Ltd.
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills held on November 25th, 1980, the undersigned, being all the shareholders of Socam Ltd., these presents declare:
1. they are familiar with the procedures taken by Roger Gagnon to revive Socam Ltd.;
2. they consent with such procedures being taken; they agree to save the Crown, harmless from any claims which may result from the revival of Socam Ltd.
Yours very truly,
Paul-Andre Gagnon J.-P. Gagnon Diane Gagnon Sylvain Gagnon Yolande Gagnon
November 30th, 1980
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance Parliamentary Secretary to The Minister of State for Trade
Re: Socam Ltd.
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills held on November 25th, 1980, the undersigned, being the shareholders of Socam Ltd., these presents declare:
1.	she is familiar with the procedures taken by Roger Gagnon to revive Socam Ltd.;
2.	she consents with such procedures being taken; she agrees to save the Crown, harmless from any claims which may result from the revival of Socam Ltd.
Yours very truly,
Louise Gagnon
November 26th, 1980
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance Parliamentary Secretary to The Minister of State for Trade
Re: Montilac Ltd.
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills held on November 25th, 1980, the
December 5, 1980
[Stage Direction]
undersigned, being all the shareholders of Montilac Ltd., these presents declare:
1. they are familiar with the procedures taken by Roger Gagnon to revive Montilac Ltd.;
2. they consent with such procedures being taken; they agree to save the Crown, harmless from any claims which may result from the revival of Montilac Ltd.
Yours very truly,
Roger Gagnon Louis Lavergne
November 28th, 1980
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance Member of Parliament Parliamentary Secretary to
The Minister of State for Trade
Re: Socam Ltd. and Montilac Ltd.
Sir:
Pursuant to Mr. Pierre Raymond's request, legal counsel of Mr. Roger Gagnon, I wish to confirm to you that following the Royal Assent of the Private Bill presented to the Senate and the Elouse of Commons to revive the companies Montilac Ltd. and Socam Ltd., I shall take the necessary steps to transfer to them the assets that I now hold in trust.
Yours truly,
The Public Curator
G. C. Lengham
Remi Lussier, Notary
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 8, 1980