1980-04-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Tomorrow, April 30, being an historic day in the life of the Dutch Royal Family and the Dutch people, and being mindful of the special regard Canadians have in their hearts for the Royal Family and recognizing the contribution of the Royal Family to the beautification of our national capital, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House convey to Her Majesty Queen Juliana on the occasion of her abdication our sincerest good wishes for many more years of happiness, and to Princess Beatrix on the occasion of her accession to the throne our prayers that Divine Providence may guide her in her reign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: 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. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the statement in the House of Commons by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on April
22, 1980, that he "tried to reach the financial critic of the New Democratic Party last week to tell him" about the non-budgetary statement made by the minister on April 21, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Minister of Finance be provided with specific, detailed and non-evasive instructions as to the use of that great Canadian invention, the telephone, together with the telephone numbers, both office and home, of opposition finance critics, to carry with him at all times.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the current strike by National Harbours Board policemen and the subsequent illegal walk-out by longshoremen in the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, and the severe economic repercussions that the city, province and Atlantic region will suffer as a result of this strike, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the House instruct the Minister of Transport to go immediately to Saint John to show his concern and intervene personally in an effort to end this dispute.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 29, 1980


AIR CANADA
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) advised the House that there would be an air service direct from Ottawa to St. John's starting next week, and that he would like all members from Newfoundland to be properly served in terms of transportation from the capital, especially on the outward run as suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and since a spokesman for the minister later yesterday advised the news media that the Minister of Transport "goofed" when he replied to the "Newfs", I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the minister see that Newfoundland be properly served in terms of transportation from Ottawa by directing Air Canada to commence a service direct to St. John's from Ottawa, or resign, since Canada cannot afford further "spoofs" or "goofs" from the minister who has now angered, alarmed and annoyed transportation users in Canada from Prince Rupert in British Columbia across every province to St. Shott's in the southeast corner of Newfoundland.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac):: Madam
Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) informed this House that he was willing to increase the maximum allowable limit for rural postal delivery contracts without submitting them to tender. In response to my question yesterday he said "of course we would like to raise the limit as soon as possible". He went on to say that he "would be the first to go ahead with such a measure and have it approved immediately".
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House direct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General to introduce the necessary legislation to Parliament as quickly as possible so that the excellent service of rural mail carriers is not deterred by the further delay of this measure's hasty passage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the fact that the Canadian government's relationship with public servants has deteriorated drastically in recent years, resulting in low morale, antagonistic negotiations, mass demonstrations and strike action, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House instruct the government to do the following as initial steps in attempting to improve the situation:
(1)	To immediately reopen direct negotiations with the clerical component of the PSAC and make a more realistic offer than the 5 per cent per annum offered to these low-salaried government employees;
(2)	to grant extensions of the priority status to those former government employees who were laid off in 1978 and 1979;
(3)	to table before this House a government plan to increase government and management efficiency prior to any further lay-offs or staff size reductions; and
(4)	when government lay-offs or staff reductions are planned, to provide an itemized report on the government services that will be affected before any action is taken.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the government's failure to aid in relocation of the CPR yards in Winnipeg, and in view of the government's unwillingness to consider financial aid for the Winnipeg Convention Centre, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboinc (Mr. McKenzie):
That the government reconsider its decision of no aid for the Winnipeg Convention Centre and make moneys available to the Winnipeg Convention Centre on the same basis as that given to other cities which have built or are considering the building of convention centres.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 29, 1980


POST OFFICE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that many small towns in rural ridings and, indeed, rural areas presently receive delivery of their mail on Saturdays, in view of the fact that this delivery date is an important one for those who have come to depend on it, and in view of the fact that the Post Office is presently considering cessation of this service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Postmaster General instruct his department to terminate consideration of the proposed ending of Saturday delivery, which is a direct slight to rural Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, who tonight I understand is addressing the all chiefs and elders conference which is meeting in the city.
The Prime Minister will know, with regard to constitutional discussion, that the Conservative government agreed that representatives of the Indian people would participate fully and directly in all constitutional deliberations having an impact upon an identifiable interest in their affairs. Is it the intention of the government to honour that commitment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will permit me to remind him that his government, 1 believe it was last December, followed up the policy which we adopted in February of last year when at the first ministers' conference on the constitution the federal government put on the agenda the issue of Indian participation and obtained the consent of the various premiers to have that item concluded the way we did.
The conclusion was that we undertook to have the ministers who were discussing the constitution meet with the Indians, and I am very happy that the then prime minister, now the
Oral Questions
Leader of the Opposition, followed up on this commitment. We certainly intend to go in that direction as well.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am sure that hon. members appreciated the brief excursion into the history and background of the question. I wonder if the Prime Minister would now answer my specific question. Will the specific undertaking given by the government which I had the honour to lead be honoured in its specific terms by this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the purpose of stating the history was to indicate that we gave the undertaking and, necessarily, we will carry it out. In the meantime, I am happy that the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to subscribe to that undertaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister is confused about the matter, I can advise him that the Indian people are not. They know there was a markedly different commitment given by the government which I had the honour to lead from that which was given by his government. It may well be that the Liberal government of the time was moving in that direction.
The Prime Minister could ease concern and clarify the question considerably if he would indicate to the House whether it is the intention of his government to honour in specific terms the commitment given by the government which I had the honour to lead.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition refers to the blues, he will see that I gave that commitment at the end of my first answer.


INDIAN ACT
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Now that the revision of the Indian Act has gone through various stages, can the minister state what his target date is for completion of that revision; and is he intending to make any changes in the terms of reference?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member's leader has just mentioned, the all chiefs and elders conference is being held during the course of this week. They will be deliberating on the Indian Act.
It is perhaps the first time in Canadian history that such a group has come logether to make their views known with respect to how they perceive and, indeed, how they would like the Canadian government to proceed on this matter.
Because of this conference, I am withholding answers to questions of this type which the hon. member has just asked
510

April 29, 1980
Oral Questions
until I have at least had a chance to hear what the Indian leaders of this country say about the matter. I will be in a better position to answer questions of the type which the hon. member has just put in a couple of weeks, after I have had an opportunity to assess the feelings of the conference.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The minister and previous ministers have conducted a number of studies that were to assist in the revision of the Indian Act. All those studies are now in the hands of the minister.
Is it his intention to discuss those studies with the Indian people at this conference, or what impact will they have and what part will they play in the revision of the Indian Act?


John Carr Munro: As I say, Madam Speaker, if one looks at the agenda, they are going into this question thoroughly. They have asked me to watch their deliberations. After the Prime Minister speaks to them tonight, they have asked me to speak to them on Thursday and respond to some of their suggestions.
I hope to be in a position then to indicate in some concrete fashion the direction in which I think we can proceed with their backing, but I will do so only in the most general terms at that early stage.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister: it is on the constitution as it pertains to the aboriginal people of this country.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to negotiate with Canada's aboriginal people the entrenchment of certain collective rights for them in any new Canadian constitution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question is too general for me to do it justice in this particular forum. If the hon. member would indicate what he means by collective rights, we might have a little discussion about them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker: Is the Prime Minister willing to negotiate with these people the entrenchment in our constitution of certain collective rights? Those rights could be defined in future negotiations between the Indian people of this country and the federal government and perhaps the provinces.
In principle, is the Prime Minister in agreement with the entrenchment of certain collective rights for the Indian nations of this country in a new Canadian constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, but I repeat: if he is asking me a theoretical question without indicating what he has in mind-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Will you negotiate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There seems to be a bit of worry over there. The position I have always taken on these discussions-but I realize it is perhaps not the forum to do it-is that there are very few collective rights which cannot be protected by reducing them to individual rights. I should like to know more from the hon. member about what he has in mind.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and also pertains to specific rights. In 1977, Mr. Justice Berger of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry called for a moratorium on major development in the north until native claims had been settled.
On March 24, 1980, application was made to the NEB for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the building of a $360 million, 12-inch, 560-mile oil pipeline from Norman Wells to Zama, Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Douglas Manly: Application was made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Douglas Manly: My question is, considering the government's recent initiatives to reopen claims negotiations with the Dene people, will the minister endeavour to persuade his cabinet colleagues to instruct all government agencies involved in the decision on this pipeline to postpone any action until Dene claims have been settled in a manner that is satisfactory to the Dene people?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I believe I shall be seeing the leadership of the Dene during the course of this week, and we will be discussing that matter. We are responding to their desire to have the land claims question to which the hon. member referred settled as quickly as possible.
Discussions have indicated that we might be able to find an acceptable solution so that all development is not frozen in the meantime. I wanted the involvement of the Dene in the type of solution that I am hopeful we can arrive at.
April 29, 1980


OIL PRICING PACKAGE-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is part of the oil-pricing package that he will be discussing with his provincial counterparts a tax or a levy on all crude oil used in Canada to pay the cost of imported oil which is to be passed on directly to the consumer in the form of higher prices for petroleum products? Is that a proposal the minister is making to the provincial governments as part of his blended price concept?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, several alternatives are being considered. They will be discussed with my provincial colleagues, and I shall be very happy to inform the House and the hon. member as to developments in those discussions.


An hon. Member:: Now answer the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister, who not very long ago was so anxious to have the full details of the previous government's proposals out in the open, would do us the same courtesy as we did to him by giving the full details.
1 wonder if he could give a commitment now that the price he will negotiate with the provincial authorities, including all taxes and levies, will not exceed the increase of $4 or $4.50 proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West, in his budget over the next three or four years. Will he make that commitment now, including taxes and levies that I referred to in my first question?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that we waited for 6'/2 months before we got from his government an indication of what they were planning to do. When we received that indication, it was not acceptable to the House or to the country. So we will take the time necessary over the next few months to discuss these matters extensively with the provinces, and I hope that we will come up with an acceptable solution for all parties concerned and for the Canadian public.
As to the second part of the question raised by the hon. member, I would like to remind him that the proposals contained in the budget of the previous minister of finance-


An hon. Member:: Four dollars and $4.50.


Marc Lalonde: -were well above the $4 and $4.50 that were mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what you said in the election campaign, Marc.
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: We have indicated quite clearly that our proposals would produce for Canadian consumers a price that would be lower than that under the previous budget put forward by that government.
Second, I would like to remind hon. members that the best evidence of this is that this year Canadian consumers have saved $2.6 billion already by the decision of this government not to impose the 18 cents tax of their government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where did you get the money: from a piggybank?


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The meeting of elders and chiefs which is going on in Ottawa right now will be very much preoccupied with the whole question of financial accountability, as was the Auditor General and the Treasury Board-not so much the accountability of Indian bands but of the department the minister represents in the House.
With regard to the service agreement on which we had such a problem getting agreement from the Indian bands and the federal government-which agreement the minister has now extended until July 15-could the minister tell us whether he has the concurrence of Treasury Board to make this extension, since there has already been an extension from 1979 to 1980? Furthermore, could he tell us what new information he will use to guide him in reaching an agreement by July 15?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I advise the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River that my officials, under my instructions, have had discussions with Treasury Board with respect to the service agreement to which the hon. member referred. 1 am going to continue those discussions in parallel fashion with discussions I wish to undertake over the next few months with the Indian leadership on this very contentious question, with the idea that we can jointly come up with a solution that will be satisfactory to all concerned.
That is my desire, and I hope to get under way with those talks as soon as the all chiefs conference is over. Again, there will be discussions on that question during the course of this week.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I take it from the minister's remark that he has not obtained the concurrence of Treasury Board to extend the arrangement that we have had with the various Indian bands throughout the country; in other words, there is no assurance that the bands will receive their financing

April 29, 1980
Oral Questions
in the usual manner, since Treasury Board insisted on the implementation of the service agreement.
Furthermore, could the minister address himself particularly to the question of what his policy will be in the future? Will he rely, for instance, on the Beaver report to establish financial accountability of the bands or the more central associations of native people in this country?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, certainly I am looking at the Beaver report. But to specifically answer the hon. member's question, financing for the bands will continue during this period under the previous arrangement with the BCRs-the band council resolutions. So that has not changed. It will continue during the period in which we have the consultations.
One of the primary reasons for the July 15 date to which the hon. member referred was that it was my hope that, as a result of consultations, we could come up jointly with an acceptable solution that we could put into operation subsequent to that date. If the talks go well, I still feel that is possible. If not, we will have to look at the possibility of an extension because, as I say, I am sure we can work the matter out.


STATEMENT OF PEQUISTE MINISTER ON PRICE OF OIL- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the startling statement made by PQ minister Marcel Leger to the effect that Quebec will have to pay world prices for oil in a few years because Alberta will apparently have to reduce its oil supplies as of 1985, could the minister tell the House whether that statement of the Quebec minister is based on serious studies of the energy situation?


An hon. Member:: They are liars.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think that this is another rather irrational statement of PQ ministers on the energy question. I am afraid that Mr. Leger is unaware of the existence of the tar sands in Alberta. He would be well advised to make a visit there. He would realize that the province has various forms of gas and oil supplies which will last for decades and should be used to serve all Canadians, including Quebeckers, of course.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. At a press conference yesterday in Vancouver, Senator Perrault of the other place chopped $2 million from the amount of the infrastructure funds announced by the minister for the Prince Rupert grain port development.
Would the minister confirm to this House that the senator's figures are not correct, and that those given by the minister to this House are in fact the amounts allocated?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the figures used by the distinguished leader of the government in the other place are right. However, there is $2 million to be added to the $20 million which I think he referred to, and that is for navigational aid. Therefore, the discrepancy is simply that the leader of the government in the other place did not include that item on top of the $20 million to which he referred.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, in light of the statements made by Senator Perrault at the press conference, would it not be more appropriate in future for these statements to be clarified by an elected representative of this House making the statements?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I had checked the written document.


GASOLINE REFINERY TAX-IMPACT UPON USERS OF FUELS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the number of alternatives which he indicated to my colleague from Saskatoon West he would be discussing with provincial counterparts. One of these alternatives, in addition to a higher excise tax on gasoline, would appear to be a tax at the refinery-or whatever one might call that-which is now the subject of some press speculation.
Will the minister confirm directly if that is one alternative? Will he also confirm that such a tax would impact not only upon consumers of automobile and vehicle gasoline, but upon consumers of home heating oil and other non-transportation petroleum products?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first I would like to welcome in the House my hon. colleague and critic who was absent a few
April 29, 1980

weeks due to illness. I hope he will remain with us for many months yet.
In reply to his question, I should point out that press reports to which he referred are, of course, speculative and I do not intend to make comments during the negotiations on all items which will appear in newspapers and all speculations from left and right. They are now speculations and I do not intend to deal with them any further.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I do not ask the minister to comment on press speculation. Unless I misunderstood him, he indicated to the hon. member for Saskatoon West that there were a number of alternatives, and he did not rule out a specific tax at the refinery level.
Will he also give the commitment that he will not rule out, in discussions with provincial colleagues, the offsets that will obviously be necessary because of the impact not only on oil consumers but specifically on certain income groups and certain geographic regions? I think particularly of Quebec and Atlantic Canada because of their high dependence on oil.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my colleagues will have noticed that I indicated to the hon. member for Saskatoon West that we were considering a number of alternatives, but I did not indicate that the one the hon. member was speculating upon was necessarily one of those alternatives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Say it isn't so.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the point raised by the hon. member is concerned, I can give him the clear assurance that I am not going to rule out any alternatives.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the long-standing need to resolve the problem of the British Columbia cut-off land claims-an injustice that affects some 30 Indian bands in British Columbia-and in view of the fact that the previous government was taking concrete and positive steps to resolve this 60-year old issue, could the minister inform the House if negotiations are presently taking place; and, if so, what is the target date for their completion?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, with respect to these particular land claims, I hope to have discussions on Thursday with the Indian leadership on precisely how they wish to proceed. I will endeavour to speed up the process if I
Oral Questions
possibly can. Pending those further discussions, I prefer to defer giving a more specific answer to the hon. member until next week.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I did mention in my preamble that this problem has been going on for some 60 years, and I think the Indians have laid down very specifically what their claims are. I ask the minister to address this problem as soon as possible. Is he contemplating a meeting very shortly with the Indians on this question?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker, I most certainly am. As I say, I hope the meetings will get under way this week. This is one of the real benefits of having the conference at this particular stage. We can talk about the process and we can talk about meetings in the very near future to keep the process going in an endeavour to resolve this particular problem.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the government's commitment to affirmative action, can the minister assure this House that he will support Alberta's policies on native employment, and that the Alsands pricing and taxation agreement will include clauses to ensure the recruitment, training and employment of native people and also ensure business opportunities for native people?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will certainly be pleased to raise this matter with my counterpart, the minister of energy for Alberta, when I see him. As part of the general policies of this government, any steps taken in the area of affirmative action to increase the employment of minority groups and women in the work force will be supported by this government.


Jack Wendele Shields: Obviously, the minister did not hear the first part of my question. I was asking if he would go along with the Alberta government policies. My supplementary is to the Prime Minister. In light of the government's commitment to Canadian ownership, is this government committed to equity participation by the native people for the development of the tar sands and heavy oil industry in northern Alberta?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that we are committed to that, but it is certainly an option that the Indian people might want to pursue.

April 29, 1980
Oral Questions


TOURISM
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. Considering the rumours that have been spread in the national capital area regarding a possible federal subsidy to the city of Ottawa for its convention centre, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to make a similar subsidy for the convention centre of Hull, a city which, as the minister knows very well, is as much as Ottawa a component of the national capital area?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Madam Speaker, as 1 indicated yesterday, the whole policy on financial aid to convention or trade centres is being revised, and 1 would like to remind the hon. member for Hull of something he knows already, that the financial commitments of the federal government in the area of Hull now exceed $500 million. But in the revision we are now doing I shall certainly take into consideration the representations he has made for the municipality he represents.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The latest in a long list of reports on the mercury poisoning of native Canadians, entitled "Methylmercury in Canada", was released recently by the minister's department and came to what I and many others believe to be an obvious conclusion, namely, that some individuals have mercury levels which are a health risk, and that one can expect the most sensitive to show early or mild symptoms of Reed-minimata disease.
What new steps are the minister and her department taking to stop the systematic poisoning of residents in northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position today to answer that question, for the simple reason that the Quebec health minister, Dr. Lazure, for a reason that I do not understand but that 1 am trying to clarify, does not want me to make public the report prepared jointly with McGill University concerning the Crees in Quebec. That is why I would prefer
to wait until this report is published before saying what we will do.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I asked the hon. lady what she intended to do herself, through her department, to stop the systematic poisoning of native Canadians my question was not about Dr. Lazure's or any other report.
What is the minister doing, for instance, to encourage the provincial governments which are involved here to compensate people whose lives have been affected by this poisoning, so that they can return to a state of health, so that alternative economies might be developed-matters of the sort that were dealt with in the report and to which my original question referred?


Monique Bégin: The hon. member did not understand. 1 will try to explain why I want co-operation and why we need provincial co-operation in this area. Naturally, we are trying to control mercury poisoning in some Indian reservations. On the federal side, that means I have nothing new to add since we are continuing our monitoring, and 1 think that in the end the right solution will be to have health workers from the Indian communities work inside the reservations so as to inform their fellow Indians and improve their eating habits. Moreover, if there are specific instances and industrial or other causes of pollution affecting the environment, we need help from the provinces. That is why, I repeat, 1 want Dr. Lazure's approval or else I will go ahead and publish the most recent study so that we can have an over-all picture of the situation, because this is indeed a very important study.


INQUIRY WHETHER QUEBECKERS REMAINING IN CONFEDERATION WOULD BENEFIT FROM PAYING LESS THAN INTERNATIONAL PRICE
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the recent statements of PQ ministers Landry and Joron, to the effect that Quebeckers should pay the world price for their oil and natural gas, which tremendous increase could be offset by exporting electricity, can the minister give the House the assurance that Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, because they belong to Canada, should have the advantage of paying a far lower price than the world price for their oil and gas? Moreover, could he say whether the exports of electricity would make up for the high cost of oil in a sovereign Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, here again we are dealing with a
April 29, 1980

whole series of statements coming from PQ ministers that are completely groundless. In the last few years, all Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, have benefited greatly from the fact that our price in Canada has been lower than the world price. This government has clearly indicated that we would arrive at a made-in-Canada price for oil and gas that would be lower and will continue being lower than the international price, which will be advantageous for all Canadians, including Quebeckers, as long as they belong to the country known as Canada.
In answer to the second part of the question, I would say that clearly the exports of electricity mentioned by the ministers would be totally inadequate as compensation for the world price a sovereign Quebec would have to pay. According to the best forecasts, such exports could bring in some $600 million, while oil imports at world prices would cost over $6.8 billion. What we are witnessing here is a bunch of nonsense meant, literally, to hoodwink Quebeckers in the current referendum struggle.


OVER-ALL POLICY-EMPHASIS ON COAL
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What emphasis, in Canada's over-all energy program and policy, is the government placing on coal?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we are placing a high emphasis on coal. Together with the provinces which have a lot of coal, we are carrying out many examinations in this field. The hon. member knows, however, that there are certain problems in connection with coal exploitation in terms of the environment and the cost of production in some areas. These are being examined.
Currently, for instance, discussions with British Columbia are going on concerning the development of whole new areas of that province for the exploitation of coal, some of it for export. If we could count on a sufficiently high demand in Canada, I can assure the hon. member that we would want to examine the coal option very closely as being one which would be added to those arising out of our large resources of gas and other forms of energy.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I appreciate the minister's answer. I wonder if he could outline any steps the government is presently taking to deal with the great issue with regard to coal from the west and from the maritimes, and tell us in particular whether anything is being done about the gasification of coal.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the question of the gasification of coal is one which has been examined and which is still being reviewed on an almost constant basis. I must advise the hon. member, however, that it appears at the present time that coal gasification for domestic purposes would result in a more expensive product than the large amounts of gas we already
Oral Questions
have, so it would not appear that coal gasification for domestic purposes is the most economical way of allocating our resources at the present time.
As far as the question of transportation tariffs for coal is concerned, I would prefer to refer this matter to my colleague, the Minister of Transport. Again, it involves the question of cost and such a matter would be reviewed as part of the general question of tariffs for transportation of goods in this country.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that delay and indecision on the part of the government in appointing special land claims negotiators for the Yukon and Mackenzie Delta regions is giving rise to all kinds of wild speculation and rumours, including the possibility of the appointment of Dr. Lloyd Barber for the Yukon and Dr. John Naysmith for the Delta, could the minister, in order to allay the apprehensions and suspicions of the residents of these areas, either confirm or deny that he is considering the appointment of these persons? When does he expect the appointment of special land claims negotiators to take place?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories one thing became abundantly clear, that is, that the governments of both territories and the people generally-whether it be people involved in the business community, or the leadership of native organizations-indicated that one of the clouds that was perpetually over the territories was the fact that the land claims question was not settled.
I assured them that I would proceed in an endeavour to appoint negotiators as quickly as possible, and that I am doing. These rumours may emanate from the fact that various names were suggested by governments and by other people interested who, they felt in their own wisdom, would be appropriate for the job.


Mr. Nielsen:: Not in the north, they would not.


John Carr Munro: Many names were suggested, there is no question about it. So I am endeavouring to find out who is available, who might be prepared to take on the job, and I hope to have an answer to that question within the next week or ten days. But I would advise the hon. member that it is not easy to find a person willing to take the job in terms of the time he will be called upon to give to it in order to do an adequate job. I am sure the hon. member is aware of that.

April 29, 1980
Oral Questions


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, the approach of the previous Government of Canada to this question in appointing a member of the Elouse to act in the capacity of a negotiator was apparently favourably received. Could the minister consider that possibility again?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: Don't phone Judge Berger.


John Carr Munro: -I have considered that possibility. 1 think it would be appropriate for members of the House, be it my parliamentary secretary or others who are interested, to act in an advisory capacity to any negotiator. But it became quite clear to me that what everybody had in mind was somebody who would sit down and work at it in a constant fashion and perhaps be involved in negotiations not only taking place in Ottawa but in the territories themselves.
That type of mandate would rule out, it seems to me, any member of the House carrying on negotiations on an active basis. It would not be realistic, and 1 think they understand that. Someone indicated that that was fine, but they certainly did not want a member of the bureaucracy, and I was quite prepared to go along with that suggestion.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Given that the Ontario government has made known that it will soon be making a major announcement concerning measures to abate acid rain-particularly that coming from Inco-and given the fact that this particular initiative will be welcomed, for example, by the Americans who will see it as an indication that at least Ontario is serious about this problem, even if the federal government is footdragging, would the minister tell the House what specific steps he intends to take now to ensure the early completion of an agreement with the United States for the abatement of acid rain on both sides of the border?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, some of the argumentation of the hon. member is false. It is not the federal government that has been dragging its feet in this matter. Indeed, the action which Ontario is about to take has been helped considerably by studies done at the federal level and on the information provided to it about the situation. It is not a question of our dragging our feet, but a question of Ontario and the Government of Canada acting co-operatively to resolve this problem.
The hon. member may want to refer back to some previous issues of Hansard to see that, indeed, the question of pressing the United States has been discussed here before. I have indicated to the House previously that we are pressing the Americans to reach an agreement. That was the subject of my
discussions with the United States a couple of weeks ago, and the matter was discussed again with secretary of state Vance on his visit to Ottawa, and I believe that substantial progress has been made.


Thomas Michael McMillan: My supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment, Madam Speaker. He has mentioned research and studies. As he will know, the previous government made a commitment in principle to a substantial increase in funding for acid rain research. This, again, demonstrates that government's concern about the problem whereas the present government seems to be less concerned.
Would the minister indicate, now, whether the commitment made by the previous government to such increased funding for acid rain research will be honoured by the new government, and whether it considers this an area of high priority?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I will try to say to the hon. member as politely and forcefully as I can that I have no attack to make on the previous government's record in this direction. But the hon. member is completely off base in suggesting that there has been any reluctance on our part to proceed vigorously in this matter. The facts are exactly the contrary, and the hon. member does himself no credit in asserting the opposite.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In an interview televised last evening, the minister reiterated his view that except in the field of aid there is no need to re-examine or have any public input to our foreign and defence policies, including our NATO and NORAD alliances.
My question to the minister is: Does this mean that the minister does not favour a six months' extension of the NORAD agreement in order to allow a review of that agreement by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has not quoted me quite correctly. What I said last night was that I did not see a need for a total review of our foreign policy. I am very happy to have contributions from Parliament and from the public in the area of foreign policy and, in particular, I hope we will soon be able to announce that we are able to have a parliamentary contribution to the question that the hon. member raises with respect to the alliance.
V-thN
April 29, 1980


EXTENSION OF NORAD AGREEMENT TO ALLOW FOR REVIEW
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence if he is in favour of a six months' extension of the NORAD agreement so that there can be a critical review of that agreement by the standing committee of the House on a reference from him, or from him and the Secretary of State for External Affairs jointly?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, without presuming on the decision which will be taken after discussion with different committees, 1 think it would be a logical and reasonable way of doing it.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport further to a question put to the minister yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
Can the minister advise whether he has acquainted himself with the location of the Mount Hope airport, and could he advise us if the expansion of that facility will proceed as announced by the previous government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not have anything to add to what 1 said yesterday on that subject. I am well informed of the location of the airport, and particularly well informed of the number of steps which need to be taken-to which 1 referred yesterday- before the runway is reoriented and the terminal extended. I gave the full explanation yesterday.


William James Kempling: I take it from the minister's reply that there is no commitment on the part of the government to proceed with the expansion announced by the previous Conservative government.
Could the minister say whether more studies have to be done? Is this what he is saying, that more studies are required before the expansion can proceed? Seventeen studies have been done so far on that airport expansion. They have examined every groundhog and tadpole from Copetown to Tapley-town and back. Surely you do not need more studies.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I answered the question yesterday by saying that the past commitment to $100 million or $45 million for that purpose was not what was paramount in my mind. What was paramount in my mind was to do the right thing in this particular instance. I indicated very clearly yesterday that there were a number of obstacles to clear, and I mentioned some specifically.


An hon. Member:: I like you better when you are serious.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


IMPROVEMENTS TO PORT OF PRINCE RUPERT-PROPOSALS FOR FUNDING
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport because of the uncertainty caused by conflicting statements made for a number of weeks over the whole question of the port of Prince Rupert.
Can he assure the House at this time that, first, the port will proceed as planned; and, second, that the funding will be similar to the funding set down by the previous Progressive Conservative government, which was acceptable to all parties in western Canada including the consortium, and also the provincial governments in western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have explained that question a number of times. It is terribly simple.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: My predecessor referred to $42 million. If one adds the navigational aids to that, one will have $44 million. If one deducts about $8 million, which is the commitment of Alberta and British Columbia to that project, one will have-


An hon. Member:: It is $36 million.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am coming to it. If one deducts from that about $14 million, which is the cost of the wharf that will be built on a cost recovery basis, one will have $22 million which is the extent of the federal government's direct contribution to that project.


An hon. Member:: This sounds like the energy formula.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There have been a number of discussions on the wharf.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That is a good place to have a discussion.


Charles Joseph Clark: On the wharf, or on the rails?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My understanding is that an agreement has been reached, on a cost recovery basis, between the National Harbours Board and the consortium. There is still one point to be finalized; it has to do with the lease on the land. That is being discussed presently and, hopefully, a conclusion will soon be reached on that also.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I have just one short supplementary question. The minister was in the process of alluding to this at the conclusion of his statement. When does he feel that the negotiations will be concluded? Can he indicate that to the House? Also, when does he think construction will start on the proposed terminal? Will it take place in the latter part of 1980, or will it be delayed until 1981?
518

April 29, 1980

Newfoundlanders both in the House and outside the House. I should have checked further the usually reliable information I got.
I have now checked and the answer I received is that Air Canada is of the view that traffic flows indicate that the best use of equipment and schedule-they failed to mention members of Parliament- is to concentrate on westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening. The present intention is to have flights as follows: departing Ottawa in the afternoon at 1600 and reaching St. John's at 2240; then in the morning a flight from St. John's would be leaving at 7.15 and arrive in Ottawa at 10.32. So members of Parliament would leave in the afternoon of Friday at 1600 and be back here at ten o'clock on Monday, which is not a bad idea, I think.
I have asked Air Canada to review this further, and I will be discussing that with them.


An hon. Member:: Is that both ways?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Both ways.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Are they to Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The flights are from Ottawa to St. John's.


Mr. McGrath:: They have misled you again.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
Point of Order-Mr. McGrath
['Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk Assistant of the House has laid upon the table the second report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.']
Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the present development entitles me to believe that the last thing to be clarified, which has to do with the lease, will be clarified in the coming days and that construction will begin in mid-May.



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



POINT OF ORDER


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. It arises out of a reply to questions asked in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). A question was directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) referring to the recently announced decline in service by Air Canada between the city of St. John's and the national capital, to which the Minister of Transport replied, as reported on page 454 of Hansard, as follows:
But my very recently acquired information is that there will be such a service direct to St. John's, and that will be announced next week-or start next week.
That is the end of the quotation. I am sure the hon. minister, whom I know and respect, does not want to mislead the House deliberately or otherwise. But in today's paper there is a quotation from his office to the effect-to quote one of his officials-"We goofed; there is not to be such a direct service announced."
1 realize how anxious the hon. minister was to accommodate his supporter in the back benches, the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, but if I may paraphrase the hon. member for St. John's West and indeed the minister's officials, I am sure the minister would not want to deliberately "goof with a Newf". Consequently, 1 want to give him this opportunity to correct the record, and even hopefully to tell the House that in fact he has intervened and that the national capital will have a service to the capital of the province of Newfoundland commensurate with the importance of that route and the amount of traffic also.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was trying to catch Madam Speaker's eye a moment ago but I failed to do so. I thank my hon. friend for giving me this opportunity. Indeed, yesterday I was a victim of my eagerness to please



MOTION RESPECTING VISIT OF PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN

['Agreed.']
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, after consulting with the other House leaders, there seems to be unanimous consent to adopt the following motion concerning the speech to be delivered in the House by the Japanese Prime Minister.
That on Monday, May 5, 1980, notwithstanding Standing Order 2(1), the House shall meet at 4.30 p.m. and shall conduct its business as if it had met at 2 p.m.;
That private members' hour shall be suspended for the day's sitting;
That the address of His Excellency the Prime Minister of Japan, to be delivered in the House chamber earlier in the day before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and
That His Excellency's speech, together with all introductory and related speeches, be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcast system.
The motion reads as follows:
April 29, 1980

Madam Speaker, as I said, there seems to be unanimous consent for this motion to be introduced today and agreed to by the Elouse of Commons.


Madam Speaker:: Elon. members have heard the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so ordered.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 212, 355, 623 and 644.


Mr. Herbert: During each of the past five years, what amount, identified by programme, was sent directly to the government of Quebec?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: The
reply to this question is contained in the answer to question No. 211 tabled this day.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Labour (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the department since March 31, 1979 and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SX's employed?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: 1. (a) 15; (b) (i)
4, (ii) nil.
2.	(a) 15; (b) (i) 4, (ii) nil.
3.	Yes, there was a structural change; it did not affect the number of SX's employed.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Treasury Board?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: The Department of Justice provides 11 lawyers to the Treasury Board. These lawyers also provide legal services to
Employment Tax Credit Act
the Department of Finance, the Comptroller General and the inspector general of banks.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Treasury Board?


Donald James Johnston: The communications division of the Treasury Board has three employees engaged in providing the services stipulated on behalf of the Treasury Board secretariat and the office of the Comptroller General of Canada. In addition, four information officers assist the two departments with other communications tasks, mainly related to publications.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 211 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Herbert: During each of the past ten years, by province, what amount was given to provincial governments by transfer and equalization payment programs?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
[Stage Direction]
April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, let me say once again that this is a continuation of my first opportunity to speak in debate this session, and I wish to join with other hon. members of the House in expressing my congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, and to offer my best wishes to you in your new responsibilities in the chair.
To continue the debate from the other evening, Bill C-19 is a very important measure with which, I submit, this House should deal with dispatch. I am delighted to refer to an intervention during my remarks the other evening by the distinguished House leader for the opposition, who indicated so openly his willingness to co-operate in the quick adoption of this most important measure.


Walter David Baker: I am a most agreeable fellow.


Maurice James Harquail: I believe there is complete agreement in this House that anything we can do as a government to alleviate any aspect of unemployment in this country must be done with haste and dispatch.
The other evening as time ran out for this debate I was stressing the importance of youth in this country in relation to the employment tax credit plan. The youth of this country suffer much more than their fair share in relation to unemployment, accounting for almost half of the total unemployed in Canada. The employment tax credit program has been a useful means of helping young people gain a foothold in the work force. About 55 per cent of the participants to date have been in the 25 or under age group, split equally among men and women.
There is substantial evidence to indicate that the early labour force experience of individuals has a significant bearing on their later employment and income record. Jobs obtained through this program, incidentally, have a fair chance of becoming permanent. In Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, more than half the employers have indicated that the jobs newly created would survive beyond the 52 weeks maximum for earned tax credits. In Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec more than 57 per cent felt most of the jobs would survive, while the figure was 41 per cent in British Columbia.
In the fiscal year 1979-80 some 39,000 agreements were signed and a total of about 51,000 Canadians were placed in jobs. Small businesses employing 20 or fewer signed 75 per cent of all agreements, and 40 per cent of those were employers with a maximum of five in their normal work force. The program was an important source of jobs for women, representing 34 per cent of all placements.
As I said at the outset of my remarks the other evening, we must collectively agree to co-operate in the adoption of such measures that will bring some relief to the unemployed of this country.
We support not only this measure, particularly in relation to the Atlantic area, but as well the Canada Works program
which we hope to see the government keep in place as an important make-work, job-creation program for the coming months. In addition to this program assisting the youth in this country, we know that the Opportunities for Youth program, which is under review at the moment, will help in a very real way, along with other measures that are approved and funds that will be spent during the summer months, to create jobs for the young university people in the work force.
Small businesses in Canada have most fully accepted the employment tax credit program which is being extended as an interim measure, pending the introduction of new employment development measures to be introduced in this House by the minister in the very near future. Acceptance of tax credits by small businesses is reflected in the fact that 77 per cent of all agreements were signed with businesses employing 20 or fewer, as I mentioned earlier. I might say that I have received a good many inquiries in my own area and have had discussions with people who have made small businesses work in this country. They are very anxious to see this measure adopted by the House and implemented.
This program is attractive to employers for the very good reason that a maximum of $4,160 in tax credits can be earned for every person hired under the program. All of the Atlantic provinces and the Gaspe region of Quebec are eligible for that amount. In most other urban areas in other regions employers can earn a maximum tax credit of $3,120 for each employee hired under the program, while in the remainder of the country the maximum is $3,640.
I realize that we can be as technical as we like, quoting figures and taking as much time as we want, but rather than delay the adoption of this measure I would simply like to take the opportunity of stressing the importance of the benefits that this measure will bring, particularly to the Atlantic region where we do have designated areas under the DREE program, areas where we do have extremely high seasonal unemployment.
I am delighted to have had the opportunity of participating in this debate in a positive way. I have indicated my support for this motion and hope that, with co-operation from all sides of this House, we will see the early adoption and implementation of Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had in this Parliament to participate in debate and I want at the outset of my remarks to offer my congratulations to you and, through you, to Madam Speaker on the ascension to your current high offices. I know both of you will discharge your responsibilities with that degree of dignity and impartiality which will do honour to all sides of this House, and which will satisfy members on all sides that the choices made were excellent ones.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Perhaps I can be forgiven if I have a sense of deja vu as I begin my first remarks here in this Parliament,
April 29, 1980

because during the previous Parliament I had the opportunity of speaking in debate only once. That intervention came during a debate on a proposal made by our government to extend rights to Canadians to a mortgage interest and property tax credit which would have given relief from high interest rates and high property taxes to millions of Canadians.
My particular intervention came in the course of an afternoon discussion on a motion which was proposed by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who was then just the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. He proposed a series of amendments to the legislation which would have had the effect of destroying the bill itself and preventing it from going forward. He put himself firmly on record as being opposed to extending this sort of tax relief for individual Canadian families.
As I said, I had the opportunity in that Parliament to speak only once in debate. I made my intervention on the proposal that is made by the present minister, and three days later the government fell. My sincere hope is that three days after this intervention on the minister's proposal which he is putting forward today, he will have the same success and that Canadians will have the opportunity to again change governments. Particularly when Canadians see the way in which this government has handled the whole question of management of the Canadian economy, they have cause for very deep concern.
The minister said in his introductory remarks that this bill would help create some 50,000 new jobs for Canadians. I can accept, as my colleagues can, that at a time when we have one million Canadians unemployed-and this figure does not include Canadians who have given up looking for work or native Canadians who are often not included in employment surveys-extraordinary measures must be taken to create employment when, clearly, unemployment is reaching the level that it is today.
I would like to stress that I find it ironic that this minister has brought-before this House, in his second bill, a band-aid measure to create these jobs when that minister was in the vanguard of leading the filibuster against the property and mortgage interest tax credit plan in the last Parliament. It is ironic that this minister and his colleagues in the Liberal party and their colleagues in the NDP blocked that tax relief for Canadians which would have provided a direct stimulus to the construction industry, given new jobs to the home furnishing industry, and given relief to individual families to make the goal of owning a home of their own much more affordable.
When we were in government we urged that action be taken quickly to give that sort of relief to home owners and young Canadians who wanted the opportunity to own a home of their own and were seeing that dream being snatched away from them by high interest rates. When we make that argument we were told by the colleagues of the present Minister of Employment and Immigration and members of the NDP that if a Canadian was wealthy enough to own his own home, then he was too wealthy to receive assistance from the government.
Employment Tax Credit Act
They said that the proposal was welfare for the rich and that such people were not entitled to receive a break from high interest rates.
Therefore, I find it ironic, to say the least, that this Minister of Employment and Immigration, who must share personally the responsibility for blocking that tax relief for Canadians, would get up today and argue in favour of a new tax credit program which would, in his words, create new jobs.
Tomorrow night is the last night for Canadians to file their income tax returns. Each of us should have had our tax returns in before now, but if you are like me, Mr. Speaker, you may not have. Millions of Canadians are going to be confused merely because of the efforts of the present Minister of Employment and Immigration in blocking that tax relief, because it was necessary for our government to put a provision on the income tax return which would allow Canadians to apply for that tax relief. There is no indication when one files a return that in fact the Liberal party and their friends in the New Democratic Party were successful in blocking that relief. Literally millions of Canadian families will find themselves tremendously confused when they discover that that tax break has been snatched away from them.
1 listened to the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans) as he spoke in the debate on Thursday night. The hon. member was eloquent as he outlined the problems which face Canadians today, those in his own constituency and those across the country, with increasing lay-offs, increasing unemployment, and increasing financial strains caused by the scorched earth economic policies of this government. I was particularly struck by his comments regarding interest rates; they were very germane. He made a statement which I think would be useful to put on the record again. He said that perhaps with our interest rate policy we should encourage the building industry to again start building homes for people of average means. He pointed out that the spin-off in the home building industry is phenomenal, that 3.6 jobs are created in related industries for every job that is created in building a house. He asked us to imagine the number of jobs that would be created in related industries if we could get on with building homes for people at prices they could afford and with mortgages they could afford. That is what he said last Thursday night, as reported at page 397 of Hansard.
I recognize that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain was not a member of this House last December when the Conservative party put forward proposals which would give relief from high interest rates and high property taxes to average Canadian families. He should recognize, however, when he speaks in this debate-bemoaning the Liberal government's high interest rate policies, that it was his present colleagues and the Minister of Employment and Immigration who were responsible for denying Canadians relief from high mortgage rates. It is not enough to express indignation about the effect upon Canadian families of these high interest rates today. Where was he then? Where were his colleagues when this government was trying to bring in provisions which would

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
give relief to Canadian families and stimulate the home construction industry?
In my own constituency, Mr. Speaker, a large number of young Canadians would like to have the opportunity to buy a home of their own but they find that they cannot do so. What would be the effects upon the economy in my constituency of stimulating the home construction industry? EIow many new jobs would be created, I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration? What would happen at the Hotpoint plant in Orangeville which supplies goods for housing? What would be done at the GSW plant in Fergus? What would happen in the furniture building industries in my constituency-


Erik Nielsen: And Winnipeg.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -and in Winnipeg, for that matter, if we were to give a shot in the arm to the home construction and home furnishing industries in Canada? How much more quickly we could create permanent jobs by giving incentives to Canadians so that they may recognize that Canadian dream of owning a home of their own. Yet we find that because of the Liberal party's policy in opposition, joined by the New Democratic Party, Canadians were denied that right and many millions of young Canadians will not have the opportunity to own a home of their own.
I think it is important that we ask these questions when considering a provision which would be an economic band-aid and which in the short term would create 50,000 new jobs. What was the policy of the minister and his colleagues when they were in opposition? What happened when we asked for their support for the initiatives we put forward to stimulate industry in Canada and create new jobs? What did they do on the night of December 13, when they were voting on a provision in a budget which would create small business development bonds?
In the mini-budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) last week, it is clear that he discovered the provision contained in the budget of December 13 which would have given small businesses in my constituency and across Canada a chance to get money at lower rates of interest. In essence, it would have subsidized interest rates for small businesses.
Where were this minister and his colleagues then? Where were the members of the NDP? In that budget we proposed measures which would have given stimulus to the small business sector, which is the major employer in the country just as it is in my constituency. Several months later the Minister of Finance has discovered that it was a good provision which would give some relief to small businessmen.
As a reasonable person, Mr. Speaker, I ask you if the small businessmen in my constituency would not be better off now if, instead of forcing an unnecessary $50 million election, instead of stalling these provisions, the Liberal party had decided to support those measures allowed them to be put in place.
The minister was party to a vote which prevented those measures being taken and which prevented us from keeping
small businessmen in business. Failures in the small business sector are running at an unprecedented rate this year. In each constituency small businessmen and family farms are going out of business at a rate unheard of in our history. Foreclosures on homes are running at a record level.
I put it to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that if he is genuinely concerned about the small business sector, about individual families and about creating jobs in Canada, it would have been better to allow that budget to go through. It would have kept Canadian businesses operating, it would have stimulated the economy and would have allowed Canadians to get on with creating the goods and services so necessary for a young and expanding population.
As I said earlier, we recognize that band-aid measures may be necessary when a million Canadians are unemployed. But I say to you that the only way we as a House of Commons can look at measures like this is to examine them in the context of the whole of the government's economic policies.
When the minister spoke in favour of this bill on second reading, I asked after he sat down whether he could elaborate on the job creation policies that were coming forward and how they differ from the proposals made by the previous government, the Conservative government. At that time the minister refused. I think he has a responsiblility to this Parliament and to the Canadian people to indicate what proposals he has to supplement what he is doing to attack the root problem of chronic unemployment that faces Canadian society today and which particularly disfavours young people. Half the people in Canada who are unemployed today are young people, Mr. Speaker. The unemployment rate among young people is running at twice the rate among older Canadians. I am worried that if the first experience young people have with the labour force is to be told that there is no room for their skills, that there is no need for them, it can have a serious effect upon their work habits in the future. What does this government propose, beyond these band-aid measures, to deal with this problem of unemployment, particularly among young people and native Canadians?
I think we have to recognize one fact, Mr. Speaker, when dealing with this whole question of employment. Perhaps nothing more graphically illustrates the difference in approach to unemployment between this government and the previous government, or between the New Democratic Party and the Conservative party, than our attitude toward job creation. We in this party believe that the private sector should be the engine for growth in the economy. We believe there should be long-term, well paying secure jobs in the private sector, not just band-aid proposals. Such proposals should not require increased expenditure by the federal government. They should not be short-term proposals which result in people being laid off after a few weeks' work.
If we are to attack the root causes of unemployment in Canada, we will have to attack them within the private sector. We will have to allow the private sector to expand in order to

April 29, 1980

provide the jobs so desperately needed today. It is not enough simply to propose band-aid solutions or short-term jobs, which is what the employment tax credit would do. We need permanent jobs, Mr. Speaker, which will give Canadians the opportunity of securing long-term employment.
The Canadian people want candor from the government regarding their economic policies. On December 13, they voted against the budget proposed by this party. They rejected the solutions we proposed and went through the election campaign claiming that our proposals were unacceptable to Canadians. They said that they were certainly unacceptable to them. The Canadian people then decided to give the Liberal party an opportunity to bring forward alternative solutions. Mr. Speaker, they have that opportunity now, but where are their policies? What are their spending plans? What is their energy policy? That would have a very important effect upon unemployment in my part of Ontario. By implication, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) indicated today that he is contemplating a major increase in the retail price of gasoline. That is the only way one can interpret his statement.
How different it is to listen to members of the Liberal party today compared to their speeches during the election campaign when they complained about our proposals to ensure energy self-sufficiency for Canadians-proposals which would ensure energy being available to all Canadians in the future at affordable prices. We were worried then, when we made our proposals, about the need to ensure jobs for Canadians.
Let me mention again, Mr. Speaker, the effect upon my constituency if this government's policies are followed and we allow ourselves to develop a growing dependence upon foreign sources of oil. What happens in portions of my constituency where Canadians must commute to work if we run out of gasoline? What happens if industries throughout the industrial heartland of Canada are forced to lay Canadians off? What happens to the homes in constituencies such as mine which are dependent upon energy being available? What happens to Canadian agriculture when shortages of energy develop?
What we find today more than two months after the federal election is that the Liberal party has yet to level with the Canadian people and to indicate what its policies are. This government has yet to tell the people where it intends to take us in terms of energy and what it will do to break that increasing dependency upon foreign oil which was started during 11 years of Trudeau government? What does this government intend to do to ensure that the promises are kept to provide energy to Canadians at a price that is affordable? It will not tell us.
What this government is doing is preparing Canadians in my constituency for higher prices and for shortages in the future. 1 ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration what will be the effects upon unemployment in my constituency in the future if his government's policies on energy continue as they are today. I ask the minister what will be the effect upon small business if the Liberal government is allowed to continue as it is today.
Employment Tax Credit Act
During the election campaign Liberal candidates went from coast to coast attacking our government because of what they described as high interest rate policies. I accept that interest rates during that period were high, because we were forced- due to the legacy left by 16 years of Liberal government, big spending government-to allow interest rates to rise. The clear implication of the statements made by Liberal candidates and Liberal frontbenchers during that period was that if the Liberal party were given a chance to govern, interest rates would go down in Canada.
You probably saw, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), when he was Liberal finance critic in the last Parliament, appear on Morton Shulman's program in Toronto and give the firm, unequivocal undertaking that he would resign if the Liberal government allowed interest rates to go higher after they formed the government. Why is he with us today? Has he changed his mind? Surely this minister owes it to the people of Canada and to my constituents-because he was in my constituency during the election campaign-talking about Liberal solutions for the economy-to indicate why his opinion on interest rates has changed.
Clearly, interest rates in Canada are having a direct effect on the ability of small business and family farmers to provide jobs in this economy. It is not enough for the Minister of Employment and Immigration to propose band-aid solutions and to ignore the real root of the problem.
The Liberal party has a responsibility to indicate to Canadians and this Parliament what are their spending plans. Both the Minister of Finance with his mini-budget last week and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) when he tabled his estimates last week-refused to indicate to the Canadian people how much money this government intends to spend this year. How can we look upon any proposal dealing with expenditures by this government if it will not level with Canadians and indicate its spending intentions?
The Minister of Finance provided projections in his minibudget. He projected that the federal deficit might go up to $14.2 billion in 1980-81, as opposed to a $10.5 billion deficit projected in the Crosbie budget last December. The Minister of Finance projected that there would be a half of 1 per cent real growth in the economy as opposed to a 1 per cent real growth projected in the Crosbie budget of last December. The minister then went out of his way to say that his figures did not constitute a firm financial plan on the part of the government, that they were simply projections.
When will we have that plan? When will this government level with Canadians and tell us what it intends to do with the Canadian economy? Clearly, in the vote on the night of December 13, it was not enough for the Liberal party to simply say that they were opposed to what we were presenting in the budget. They had a responsibility to the Canadian people to come up with their own solutions and to indicate where they wished to take this country.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration made his introductory remarks in this debate, he said that his

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
proposal today was not designed to undercut the role of the private sector. The minister continues to believe that the private sector should be creating jobs in our economy. How can the private sector be expected to increase investment in our economy if it is left with continuing drift and uncertainty on the part of the Government of Canada.
It has been a year and a half since this country has had a budget passed by Parliament. Yes this government, of which this minister is a prominent member, continues to deny Canadians leadership and continues to refuse to indicate to them what the government's economic plan is for the future.
There are ominous signs, Mr. Speaker, because in the Speech from the Throne the government gave an indication of how it differs from the approach taken by the previous government. The Clark government, of which I had the honour to be a part, believed that the time had come in Canada for governments to pay their bills, to reduce the size of the government, to bring it under control and to begin to have government of a size which was manageable by the Parliament of Canada and by the cabinet of Canada. But what we find in the Speech from the Throne is a statement that Canadians do not want smaller government, they want more efficient government.
I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration that you cannot have fat government at the same time as you have efficient government. If you are going to be successful in having an economy that is properly managed, if you are going to have this Parliament discharging its responsibilities to scrutinize public expenditures properly, or if you are going to have a feeling that the cabinet, the elected representatives, have some control over the activities of the government, then you cannot have fat government. You cannot have government which is characterized by waste and by uncontrolled growth, and yet this is what appears to be offered to the Canadian people by this government.
I want to remind the Minister of Employment and Immigration of the commitment made by the Liberal party. Perhaps it is a mistake to do so because the Liberal party has already indicated its intention to break so many commitments that it made as a party in opposition. However, I want to remind him of a statement made by the Prime Minister on January 12, 1980, when he was leader of the Liberal party, to the Liberal campaign college in Toronto. I have a copy of his text here and this is what he said:
Our commitment is this:
-We will hold the line on government expenditure growth to under the rate of GNP.
-We will not introduce the gas tax or the mortgage scheme. This will mean more justice for our society and more money for the treasury.
-We will review the tax system to ensure that all sectors of the economy make their fair contribution to future needs.
-The deficit will be reduced-
I find that statement hard to believe even when I see those words in black and white. The Prime Minister went on to say:
-in a phased and orderly fashion, but not at the expense of jobs, growth and the attack on inflation.
-Finally, in this election campaign we pledge that any new expenditure programs to meet the evolving needs and requirements of Canadians will be financed by re-allocating existing expenditures or by increases in revenues. We will not add to the deficit by adding new programs.
I asked the President of the Treasury Board in this House last week on more than one occasion if he would level with the Parliament of Canada and with the Canadian people and indicate whether that promise to hold spending growth to less than the growth in the GNP would be kept. The minister refused to give a straight answer. He refused to give a firm undertaking that it would be. He said that that was their goal, that they would like to hold down expenditure growth to less than the real growth in the GNP. But he refused to give any firm commitment.
I ask what happened to the commitment that any new expenditures would be financed by reallocating existing resources as opposed to increasing the deficit? What will the deficit be? What are the spending plans of this government? When will the Canadian people be given the opportunity to know what plans the government has for them? When will the government level with Canadians? What does the Liberal party believe in? What kind of leadership does it intend to provide for Canadians? Surely the time has come with a majority government in office to provide leadership for Canadians and for the government to provide an example of candor if they expect the private sector is going to be willing to make the investment that is necessary to create new jobs in our economy.
I would remind the minister as well of a statement that was made by the Liberal party during the election campaign in response to a Financial Post questionnaire about spending. This is how the Liberal party responded to that questionnaire and stated their policy on spending and growth:
Our policy is to continue ensuring that government spending grows less rapidly than gross national product. As this policy will require the same kind of restraint which kept spending increases below 10 per cent over the last four years, most changes will have to be in the form of reallocations of existing budgets to ensure continued emphasis on economic development and to protect the least fortunate in society.
What happened to that commitment? If you believe that the Liberal party was serious and was acting with honesty when it made this commitment, what it must do now, when the Minister of Finance projects a real growth rate in the Canadian economy for this year of one-half of 1 per cent, is to keep spending to less than one-half of 1 per cent of real growth. Will the government keep that commitment or break it as it has broken so many others?


An hon. Member:: They have broken it already.


Henry Perrin Beatty: My colleague is saying that the Liberals have broken it already. Indeed they have. So much for candour on the part of this government.
Because the government recognized the devastating effect that inflation was having on lower income Canadians, upon middle-income Canadians and on small business, it promised
April 29, 1980

to attack inflation. But where is it? Where is the indication that the government is prepared-


Erik Nielsen: To wrestle inflation to the ground.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -as my colleague has said, to wrestle inflation to the ground? The Prime Minister promised this many years ago. As he said before, inflation was dead in Canada, that it no longer existed. He said that separatism was dead in Canada as well.
What we did was to institute a regime of restraint. We indicated that if new spending was to take place, it was going to be necessary to reallocate resources out of current budgets which exist today. But what we are going to find now, now that these big spenders are back in office, is increased deficits on the part of the federal government, massive increases in federal spending and massive new intrusions by the federal government in the private sector. We are going to find that because of the government's demands on money in our society, pools of capital which are necessary to the private sector to remain healthy and to expand will be drying up. That is the Liberal party's policy on inflation. That is the direction in which they intend to take the Canadian economy.
When will we have a budget? When will we have more than band-aid measures? When will we have an indication that the government is serious about dealing with these problems which it complained about when in opposition? What we have today in positions of leadership in Canada is a government that is either indifferent to business or hostile to it.
We can go back to the date of the Prime Minister's year end remarks when he talked about a new society, when he talked about how the free enterprise system in Canada had failed. The free enterprise system in Canada, Mr. Speaker, was not given the opportunity under successive Liberal governments to succeed. What they found was that the federal government would strangle the private sector through increasing regulation, through paperwork burden, through higher taxes, through uncontrolled federal spending which led to massive inflation on the part of the Canadian economy. Clearly Canadian business has a right to be skeptical as it makes its investment decisions for the years ahead. Surely small businessmen in my constituency have a right to ask the minister and to ask all members of the treasury bench what their plans are and when they will begin to recognize the problems facing small businessmen, family farmers and families of average means in Canada today. When will the government begin to bring in proposals which will be helpful to these Canadians? We do not see any indication of any awareness on the part of this government of the problems being faced by so many Canadians.
1 was disturbed by two aspects of this bill in particular. The first is in the area of job creation. While this will be helpful in the short term, these jobs are not necessarily permanent ones. Federal funding runs out, and when it runs out, all too often the jobs run out as well. What we should be doing is ensuring that permanent jobs are created in the private sector. We can
Employment Tax Credit Act
only do that by attacking the underlying problems facing business today, not by treating them with band-aid solutions.
I was disturbed also by one element of the bill, and I was made that much more concerned by the remarks of the parliamentary secretary when he spoke on Thursday night. We on this side of the House pointed out that because this proposal is a tax credit, the benefits will only go to those businessmen with taxable incomes, to those who are profitable and are therefore paying taxes. When the parliamentary secretary spoke he tried to respond to this point by pointing out that you can roll forward the benefit for up to five years, and if a business became profitable after five years it could claim, at any time during that five-year period, this tax credit.
What he is saying is that the government intends to provide benefits for small businesses as soon as they no longer need them, as soon as they get profitable, not in the formative stages, not when times are rough, not when the jobs of Canadians who are already working in those small businesses are already in jeopardy because they are not profitable, but when they turn the corner by themselves without the assistance by this government. Then the tax credit will be of some use.
1 want to put on the record again the comments made by the parliamentary secretary because I found them extraordinary. I do not think that this government should be allowed to forget statements like this by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Dawson) in dealing with the effect on small businesses and whether indeed this tax credit would be of benefit to small businesses which are profitable.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration said, as quoted at page 393 of Hansard:
Many would argue that we should not subsidize an unprofitable firm, but a firm which cannot make a profit after five years should not be given the benefit of the tax credit. That is the first point.
What he is saying is aid for the healthy, aid for the profitable, but not aid from this government for small businesses at a time that is critical to them and to their very health. When jobs in existing industries or new businesses which are being created now and which are not profitable in their first year are in jeopardy, this government will be nowhere to be found. You can call on them for your tax credit after you turn the corner, after you become profitable-if you do in spite of this government's policies.
As I said at the outset, this party recognizes that the serious social and economic problems posed by unemployment in Canada today require that the government take measures, even band-aid measures, to begin to alleviate some of the suffering of a million Canadians.
We demand from the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Prime Minister and members of the treasury benches that they accept their responsibility to come forward to the Canadian people in the Parliament of Canada with an economic plan designed to attack the root causes of problems

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
in our economy, that they recognize for the first time that business must be a partner in creating these jobs. It must be the singlemost important instrument for creating these jobs. That can only be done if government begins to restrain its demands upon the economy, and if we begin to show some respect to the private sector and to the entrepreneur, small businessmen, the family farmer, who so desperately need an ear in Ottawa that is willing to listen.
[ Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I did not want to miss this opportunity to make some comments on the bill under consideration or on the extension of legislation that we already know. Still I would like to say to the minister at the outset that of course in principle we cannot seriously object to his request to maintain the tax credits in order to help not only some industries but more particularly a number of unemployed who would be glad to be back in the labour force. In principle we have no major objection but indeed we will not miss this opportunity to let the minister know that this measure is just not enough to solve the problem of unemployment that we face today because unemployment means a lot of hardship or misery for over a million Canadians.
This is not the first time in about 12 years or so that I have heard unemployment problems discussed in the House of Commons. I remember very well that when I first came here there was already concern about the fact there were some
300,000	unemployed. In the last 12 years, after many representations, there were so many statements or promises that that number of 300,000 would be reduced! Today there are about four times as many unemployed. 1 am concerned as are my colleagues and many others. I presume members opposite are also concerned about the means that are now open to the government, whose attitude since the throne speech gives us even more reason to worry, and thousands of Canadians are worried because of inadequate measures.
We have before us a piece of legislation that will undeniably produce a few thousand jobs, but we must not waste this opportunity to make the minister aware of the situation-in any case, he can take new initiatives in cabinet-to prod him to make proposals that would go much further than the form of aid we have before us.
I know that this legislation results in assistance ranging from $1.50 to $2 an hour in certain areas. I also know that this legislation which has been in force for over a year has meant the creation of some 50,000 additional jobs. According to the minister the problem lies in the fact that the act provided for tax credits ending March 31 and that it was urgent to table this bill which, of course, has forced the House to postpone the throne speech debate.
The minister emphasizes that, as stated in the Speech from the Throne, he definitely intends to present in the near future-perhaps in a matter of two or three weeks-other job-creation programs to deal with the unemployment problem
in Canada. I want to stress that this is only a beginning and that the government will keep introducing job-creation programs. Finally there will be a committee to study the possibility of creating new mechanisms which would help create employment. These are observations which have often been made in the House of Commons for the past 12 years, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe that the absence of adequate measures in the Speech from the Throne must be construed as wishful thinking.
In the Speech from the Throne we have not heard many commitments on the part of the government to reassure the
200,000,	300,000 or 400,000 unemployed. In addition, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) did not hesitate to point out that unemployment would reach at least 8 per cent, and in view of the delay in tabling his budget, we already have the impression that unemployment could reach 9 per cent at the end of this year which means 200,000 or 300,000 additional unemployed. Also, the absence of economic direction will delay some investments and discourage some investors from taking concrete steps in terms of job creation. The minister must be aware of those things.
We are now clearly witnessing the economic failure of this government over the last 12 years. Mr. Speaker, some might say we did not bring in enough measures during the seven months we were in power, but we had already clearly given a new direction in terms of the use of private enterprise. It was also clear that businessmen seemed to feel we were moving toward a kind of co-operation and mechanisms that would allow them to invest with confidence and optimism because after only a few months they were already feeling we were going to give back to private enterprise the place it deserves in a society like ours. But in the circumstances, in the absence, 1 repeat, of the measures that were necessary, it is also clear that we are going to experience once again a certain stagnation that is going to create more unemployed, given the measures which we had already considered and which this government is now refusing to take.
And to illustrate this, since 1968, I think we might have to talk about a drama because I think we have to agree that in the context of unemployment, which we call the cancer of our economy, it is clearly a drama. And it is a drama at the Canadian level, it is a drama in my province also-I think many hon. members from Quebec know perfectly well the miseries the province of Quebec is going through as a result of a rather extraordinary rate of unemployment. Some would like to blame the provincial governments and heaven knows how the provincial government-even before the arrival of Mr. Levesque, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Johnson or Mr. Bourassa was in power-was always under fire from members of this House because of the rate of unemployment back home; it was the same in the maritimes and elsewhere, and we just found out that there are problems and concerns in Ontario as well, and rightly so. So I believe that the last 12 years indicate a
April 29, 1980

failure at this level and it seems that the measures or the attitude or the theories of the current government did not succeed in finding a solution to adjust the unemployment rate to a more acceptable level.
In the light of strong disappointment, Mr. Speaker, some people wanted to take advantage of the Speech from the Throne to address themselves only to the question of national unity. I have no objection because it is a problem that has to be solved before long, but how can we think of a solution to national unity when the unemployment rate will rise again this year, when so many regions and provinces show their disappointment with the lack of sufficient measures, the lack of efforts to consult with the provinces in the face of an economic problem?
When a sufficient number of Canadians will be working, it will be much easier to talk to one another, Mr. Speaker, for it is important to be able to discuss, and it will also be much easier to understand one another. But when provinces and regions are faced with such problems on an economic level as they are experiencing today, and when the situation dates back to 12 years ago, when projections indicate difficult months and years to come, it is hard to ask Canadians to forget these problems and treat one another as brothers. So we are faced with an economic problem, raised several times by many in this House. This economic failure is certainly not my responsibility nor that of my party and the proposal by the minister is nothing more than a feeble attempt at solving forthcoming problems.
I shall speak about my own province, but 1 would certainly not want to miss the opportunity to state that the same problems exist in my constituency. Since I have represented this constituency for 12 years, 1 know how many times I have had to appeal on behalf of serious organizations such as the municipal council of the major city in my riding and how many representations I have made on behalf of certain municipalities and organizations concerning economic matters. Mr. Speaker, 1 believe it took me ten-odd years to benefit from the advantages offered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to certain areas in my province and in other parts of Canada. It took me roughly ten years to obtain for my constituency what has been in effect since April 1, namely the benefits granted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. For ten years, 1 was refused these advantages even though my constituency was also suffering from high unemployment and, of course, during my short term as minister I made the public service and my government understand that my riding, as much as any other area in Canada, but not more than any other, deserved these advantages which will provide certain subsidies in the next four years if some industries are interested in developing there.
Employment Tax Credit Act
At least my constituency now has the same tools as other regions. In Quebec as a whole, we have many people in city councils, chambers of commerce and economically stimulating organizations who have thought about encouraging the required and appropriate infrastructures for the establishment of certain industries. 1 therefore trust that the extension of this legislation will allow a certain number of industries to benefit from the act. But once again, that is not enough.
I hope that my constituency, like so many others, will soon be able to know if the budget includes incentives for job creation. For the moment, however, we have been refused a budget and we have no information on what it will include and this just adds to many deceptions, concerns and expectations.
I believe we should do much more than what we are now doing. I would also like to say that when we talk about incentives, many people are greatly concerned about the refusal of the government to do anything for home owners. We know that the building industry has a strong impact on job creation. I think that this sector employs about 30 per cent of Canadian manpower. And yet, Mr. Speaker, we had proposed a program designed specifically for the home owner to help him keep his house in spite of high mortgage rates.
I think that this government knows what excessive interest rates mean. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance recognizes as does the Speech from the Throne, that the rates are excessive but nothing has been proposed yet to develop and help the construction sector and home owners. 1 remember that our proposal had been delayed and boycotted, I think the word is appropriate in the House of Commons, because it offered no direct help to tenants. But this government offers them nothing either. If it had been true that our budget was unacceptable to them, even though thousands of home owners think otherwise, it would have been urgent to propose something for tenants, but we are still waiting for that kind of measure. But it is also proven, Mr. Speaker, that the measure we introduced was aimed at helping home owners keep their homes through interest assistance and encouraging Canadians to buy their own homes, giving them a share in this land, so they would become prouder and more involved in our society through home ownership.
We know that a Canadian who gets his own home becomes involved in municipal, provincial and federal affairs-this is automatic and quite natural, Mr. Speaker. But for some time interest rates have been rising, home owners are concerned and there are statements that this government should think over. There are reports from Toronto, in Ontario, a press release that there are thousands of bankruptcies because of high interest costs.
The home builders association are making very official representations on the lack of measures urgently needed to help the building industry. 1 have here a letter from CIPREC, the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, from

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
which I would like to quote a few paragraphs. That letter was sent to the Minister of Finance. I quote:
Our industry recognizes the need to reduce the inflation rate, to control the level of deficits and to maintain interest rates at appropriate levels to support the value of our currency. But such unprecedented rates have an abnormal impact on the real estate industry, and especially the residential sector. The development of real property is of prime importance to the economic welfare of this country, and more jobs probably depend on that industry than any other.
It is stressed that-
In 1976, there have been 273,000 new housing starts in Canada, but the figure declined to 197,000 in 1979. The CMHC estimated that the Canadian demand could justify the building of up to 220,000 units in 1980, but under current conditions the figure cannot exceed 150,000. The general implications of unemployment are very serious since the building of each unit creates between 3 and 4.4 man-years of employment. Consequently, a decrease of 70,000 units below Canadian potential could result in the loss of 200,000 jobs this year.
Those are not my remarks, Mr. Speaker. This is not a totally groundless comment I make; those remarks come from a serious organization entertaining equally serious concerns about current interest rates and which will entail considerable loss in the housing industry, affect hundreds of businesses and could indeed increase unemployment by as much as 200,000 people.
I could not miss this opportunity to point out to the responsible minister his obligation to make urgent appeals to the cabinet, to force his government to take action primarily concerned with housing. That is clear, and I think members opposite feel the same way. Besides, 1 recall that a short time after the election, at a government caucus meeting, some members, each more talkative than the other, told journalists how important it was to pressure the cabinet into helping home owners who were already anticipating the loss of their house. We all know that the renewal of mortgages is of terrible concern for young and older home owners alike. Even young people who would like to become owners overnight are really stuck because of those interest rates and because of the lack of action by the government. But the minister is not unduly worried. He suggests that 35,000 home owners could be hit a little harder, but despite that he is confident that he will manage to get over it.
Clearly, the government refuses to give help that is essential and now urgent. And it speaks of a measure that is efficient and will reduce unemployment. It is unthinkable, Mr. Speaker; we will witness months and years of hardship if this government does not agree to change the formula that has made of it the winner in terms of unemployment for the last 12 years. How inconceivable, how unacceptable that this government should continue thinking that by spending a bit more money on social programs the rate of unemployment will be reduced. But the people want to work! Some will say that too many Canadians are lazy. The Prime Minister himself did not hesitate to say so. But that claim is untrue. Personally, I feel that, as a whole, the Canadian people have more pride than that: they are eager to work. Canadians are not happier when
they have to depend on social measures and unemployment insurance. Such claims are simply not true.

The public expects real proposals, a new economic direction; the people and the business sector are waiting for the government and the budget, to find out in what direction the country will go from here on in. That is important for business, and its members will not hesitate to invest provided, first, they can invest in the private sector while at the same time helping Canadians through their competence and know-how. I feel present leaders of this country would stand much to gain if they listened to businessmen who, as a group, have proved their initiative, have made progress, and have achieved fantastic results for the country as a whole. It seems to me the administrators of this country, the Prime Minister and the cabinet, could benefit from sitting down with that type of entrepreneur to find out what is going to become of the business sector.
Given the present state of bankruptcy of our economy, our private enterprise would certainly not want to consult with any of the members that have been in the cabinet in the last 12 years. But I have been one of those who often favoured the possibility of bringing together representatives of the business world who live close and know the Canadian economy, the Minister of Finance and his staff as well as trade unions representatives, because they all are directly involved in, and directly interested by, the question we are debating now and by the unemployment issue.
It is urgent, I think, that the government recognize that middle and long-term policies and objectives are needed in terms of the private sector which would certainly appreciate knowing the intentions of the government. Then we will be able, I think, to encourage investors to invest more money. We certainly will have to have some kind of incentives so that Canadians invest their money in our businesses, instead of the government procrastinating on those measures which we will debate until May 20, Mr. Speaker. I know it, I feel it; there is now a more pressing priority than to listen again, Mr. Speaker, to questions directed to ministers about questions asked by Quebec ministers. It does not make any sense at a time when we have so much to deal with here in Ottawa.
If some members are concerned about the loss of confidence of a number of Canadians or a number of Quebeckers in the federal system, it is because the people in charge at that time lost this confidence here in the House and now they will have to win it back here in the House by introducing constructive, positive measures. The minister of employment will have his work cut out for him during the next few months and the next few years. Of course, the measure he has moved is acceptable but the lack of propositions, for which we have been waiting for three weeks, is bound to discourage Canadians. It is certainly not likely to encourage the members who sit on this
April 29, 1980

side who, I am sure, had succeeded in giving at least a direction and a certain optimism to all Canadians.
It is not through the Speech from the Throne that we should act. 1 know that. We know that there are only pious wishes in the Speech from the Throne. Some proposals should follow the good intentions mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but those proposals are not put before the House of Commons; we are waiting for them, we are waiting for the budget, and that cripples the affairs of the country. However, Canada has not been too well served by its Parliament in the last 12 months as there was hardly a two-month sitting period. Therefore, in order to help his Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) should table his budget as soon as possible so that Canadians can expect some proposals which could mean a reduction in the unemployment level, of which the new Minister of Employment and Immigration would be the champion. I am convinced that the new minister is well intentioned, I really am, but I caution him against the experience he has not had with this government, but which we and thousands of Canadians have had for the last 12 years. This experience has unfortunately resulted in an increase in the number of unemployed in Canada from 300,000 in 1968 to 1,300,000 in 1979 or 1980. Some will say that the number of people in the work force has increased, of course, the population has increased, but we do have more unemployed and that is the problem of the Canadian people.
We all wish that the social climate were healthier than it is at present. But, as I said, Mr. Speaker, we must first of all solve the economic problem. The provinces are aware of this. They have often been let down in their representations to this government in the last 12 or 13 years. The provinces would have wanted to be involved in the major national decisions. But they were not given the opportunity to participate, yet that would have made the government realize the advantage of solving certain things and the danger of going too quickly in certain areas. Because of this government's attitude, we now have an unacceptably high rate of unemployment. I think the government should reconcile provincial interests as quickly as possible so that we can propose economic measures in accordance with regional and provincial realities.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that these few comments will be sufficient warning to the minister so that he will pressure his cabinet colleagues and prompt the Minister of Finance to present concrete measures in the House, because his objective is a very noble one, I am sure, that of lowering the unemployment rate in Canada and we are all prepared to co-operate with him in this regard.
But I must remind the minister that we will not achieve this objective if his government is bent on maintaining the philosophy or attitude of the last 12 years. Important changes must be made, and I trust that the new ministers in this old cabinet
Employment Tax Credit Act
will be able to bring about new initiatives. Only then could we congratulate and applaud the new government, if it deserves it.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to debate the principle of the bill now before us, Bill C-19, one is struck by what I would call the somewhat schizophrenic behaviour of the government. On the one hand, the government doles out money to business to subsidize the private sector to create jobs in the short run, as exemplified by this bill, and on the other hand, sometimes in co-operation with other governments, they hand out millions to business, again to subsidize the private sector to destroy jobs in the longer run. Obviously this bill is an example of the former, and the example to which I want to refer in just a few moments is a rather glaring illustration of the latter.
The attitude of the government would seem to be summed up rather well in the words of a rather well known actor, Peter Ustinov, when he said, "I find myself of two minds on the subject-one more or less in disagreement with the other." That appears to be the attitude of the government.
As I said, this program seems to fall into the first category-handing out money or doling out money to some of the private sector in order to create jobs in the short run. Are they temporary jobs? How temporary are they? Do we really know, as yet, how many jobs have been created by this wage subsidy program, most of which will be at the minimum wage or very close to it, I would suspect? Perhaps we could hear something more from the government as to what level of income they expect people to live on who hold the jobs which are, in large part, created by this program. Is the purpose of this bill to open up to new applicants or new businesses the addition of more employees in the creation of more production, or is it to extend the current jobs already created in that sector?
In any case, I should like to now comment on the opposite end of the pole. A story appeared in the Toronto The Globe and Mail on April 21 entitled: "$140 million grants to mills will cost 600 to 800 lost jobs". The federal government will put up one-third and the provincial government of Ontario in this case will put up two-thirds under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion program, which is the program we are dealing with here. The Department of Regional Economic "Contraction" would perhaps be a better term, especially if this is to indicate the kind of path on which that department is embarked. The almost $50 million, which is the federal government's contribution to this particular program, is not, to our way of thinking, in line with the recent statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the policy of the government is to "help those who need help the most". If that is the case, I think we have come upon a rather startling definition of those who are "in need" in our society.
1 should like to mention some of the companies. The article which appeared in The Globe and Mail reads as follows;

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Among the companies given grants so far, Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd. could lose 200 jobs at its mill in Dryden. An additional 240 will be lost at an Abitibi-Price Inc. mill at Iroquois Falls.
Mr. More, who is the pulp and paper consultant to the Ontario department of industry and tourism, according to the article also said the following:
-another 280 jobs will be iost at Ontario Paper Co. Ltd. in Thorold; about 100 at Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. Ltd. of Kapuskasing; and 20 at Domtar Inc. in Red Rock.
If this is the government's new definition of those "in need" in our society, then it perhaps strikes some of us in our corner of the House as strange that that is where the public welfare bill of this government is going. It is quite in line with the kind of corporate welfare which has been passed out for many, many years by this government, the former Liberal government and the "blue blip" that appeared somewhere in the middle.
Apparently these are corporations which the government thinks are in need of this assistance. We are paying almost $50 million out of the federal treasury to eliminate between 600 and 800 jobs. I wonder what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) would think about some of the companies. Some of them are multinationals, some of them are 100 per cent subsidiaries of American corporations, and others have interlocking directorships which are somewhat more obtuse in nature.
Is E. B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd., a subsidiary of George Weston Ltd., a firm that is really "in need"? What about Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. Ltd.? The company is 100 per cent United States owned. What about the Ontario Paper Co. Ltd.? That company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chicago Tribune Co. All of these companies have regular profits in the tens and in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do they need subsidies from the public purse-out of the pockets of working taxpayers-in order to do what they ought to be doing if they are interested in running efficient and proper businesses? It is rather beyond the wildest extent of my imagination. I do not know how we can legitimize that as being a proper charge on the public purse.
Meanwhile hundreds of smaller independent companies in the forest industry in particular are in severe danger of going belly-up due to some of the other policies of this government. While Bill C-19 may be all right in itself, it does nothing to put a dent in the kind of unemployment the other policies of this government are creating. Under some circumstances maybe there could be a proper case for the kind of social assistance that is being offered to these corporations.
Again I should like to refer to Mr. More, the pulp and paper consultant to the Ontario department of industry and tourism, the provincial partner in this giveaway, and what he said about these companies' attitude. He said the following:
-the industry endangered its position in the world market in past years by not having the business sense to expand and consolidate.
Also he said:
As a result, the government now has to guide it with multi-million dollar incentives.
Mr. More's words describing their attitude in past years are rather colourful, but I should like to quote his remarks as they appeared in The Globe and Mail. I am sure The Globe and Mail would not print anything which should be censored. It reads as follows:
They take the attitude: "When things are good, we'll go like a son of a bitch and make good profits, and when they're bad we'll tough it out."
Those are the words of an official of the Conservative government of Ontario describing the attitude of the compag-nies to which this government is giving $50 million because they did not do their jobs.


Mr. Blais:: Does that offend you?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: As a woodworker, it really offends me. But it is difficult to understand what rationale the Department of Regional Economic "Contraction" has in mind when it gives this kind of assistance to companies with that kind of dismal record in terms of looking after their own affairs and keeping their own business house in order. It is an incentive for initiative in reverse. It is free enterprise turned upside down. I am suprised that my Tory friends are not jumping in on this. Surely the Conservative government of Ontario could be wrong too.
This is one of those nice hunky-dory, cosy relationships we seem to have within the "contracted" departments and their friends. Something needs to be said because we hear some of our friends to our right chastizing some of the unemployed for refusing to accept work, by whatever definition they may choose, as one of the speakers did earlier in this debate last week.
The Conservative party was rather schizophrenic on that too, because one of their critics stood up and said that there were actually fewer unemployed than appeared because a lot of people would not take jobs when they were offered, while another stood and suggested there were in fact hundreds of thousands of hidden unemployed in Canada who should appear in the statistics but do not in fact do so. I suppose the government is not the only group that is a little schizoid in this regard.
The policies being pursued, which are creating such a severe rate of unemployment in a number of industries, particularly in the forest industry, are really the result of a coalition policy, again of the current Liberal government, the past Liberal government and the "blue blip" that appeared in between. One of the key aspects of that policy, of course, has been the continually rising-now floating-slightly sinking-we will never know-interest rate policy that has been a feature of all three governments.
1 would just like to mention a few things about unemployment, in the forest industry in particular. In fact, things are getting so standard as regards lay-offs and headlines and news about lay-offs from one end of the country to the other that the Daily Townsman of Cranbrook, in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke
April 29, 1980

(Mr. Parker), now prints headlines that say "CFI plans no lay-offs yet due to poor market". Surely we have reached the height of absurdity and asininity in terms of our approach to unemployment and the kind of policies which seem almost deliberately designed to create it when the fact that there are no lay-offs at a major mill creates news. Surely our world is being turned upside down.
This is not just a matter of the government's current interest rate policy. I will have something more to say a little later about the designs and the plans of both the government and the Bank of Canada and its announced policies, which seem to be pursued in order to put us into an even worse position than that now prevailing in the United States. If we think we are in trouble in our housing industry, let us consider the United States lumber industry which is facing an even worse crisis. This government by its statements-and I will go into those in a few minutes-seems determined to catch up.
On April 4, just a few weeks ago, a report in a newspaper in Spokane, Washington, indicated 38,000 lumber workers in the Pacific northwest were unemployed due to high mortgage and high interest rates prevailing in the United States. In this morning's The Globe and Mail it was reported from Boise, Idaho, that more than 60,000 mill workers and lumberjacks in the northwest and southern United States are now out of work, due again to interest rate policies and the refusal of the United States government, although it has done more than the Canadian government, to take specific action to aid home owners, giving some type of assistance to those who are having to renew their mortgages for the first time. That government is doing more than Canada, but it is still only a drop in the bucket there. This government is doing nothing here.
No one would suggest, and members of this party would be the last to do so, that whatever action the Canadian government takes in terms of our mortgage interest rates, or the interest rate structure in Canada, is going to put everybody back to work in the Canadian forest industry. None of us would suggest that. There is a significant market, particularly for plywood, in central and eastern Canada, but that market is falling apart.
In a number of recent stories, one again in today's The Globe and Mail, this is mentioned. This article is from Amherst, Nova Scotia, and it states:
Tony Rumbold said markets for the bureau's 49 member-firms started dipping sharply in February as high interest rates slowed down housing construction in Canada and the United States.
That report is from the Maritime Lumber Bureau. The situation has worsened.
I am not suggesting that the unemployment statistics tell the whole story, but what are some of the statistics in the forest industry? Let me refer to the government's figures from Statistics Canada's labour force survey for March, 1980. They indicate that in the Atlantic provinces in the forest industry there were 4,000 unemployed, or 44.4 per cent. According to StatsCan there were 11,000 or 44 per cent unemployed in the forest industry in the province of Quebec, and that is as of March. In Ontario the figure was 11.1 per cent, but both the
Employment Tax Credit Act
governments of Ontario and of Canada seem set hell bent to make it worse.
In British Columbia there were 3,000 or 10 per cent unemployed, and let me say a little more right now about that 3,000 figure or 10 per cent in March for British Columbia. The last report compiled by regional Council No. 1 of the IWA which covers western Canada-these are just IWA members but there are a number of other labour organizations in the forestry industry in this country including the Canadian paper-workers union and the lumber and sawmill workers, not to mention the tens of thousands of Canadian woodworkers who do not have the benefits of union organization-listed 3,000 unemployed in the IWA alone in March, but as of April 22 the total for that region west of the Manitoba-Ontario border was 6,082.
By May 2, just a few days from now, there will be an additional 300 laid off in The Pas, Manitoba, by the Manitoba Forestry Resource Corporation. Just a couple of days ago, I believe, there were 350 people laid off at a mill in Salmon Arm, British Columbia. By the end of April 1,640 employees of Weldwood of Canada will be laid off, mainly in the Williams Lake and Quesnel areas of the Cariboo district in British Columbia. That is a total of 8,000 to 9,000 people.
Let me read briefly from a couple of notes prepared for me a few days ago when I attended a meeting that was attended in turn by a number of people who had just been laid off or were about to be laid off in the Kootenay region, both Kootenay West and Kootenay East-Revelstoke. I asked some of them for an up-to-date report. This note is from an employee of Revel-stoke Sawmill in Radium, British Columbia, and states:
On April 4, Revelstoke Sawmill, Radium, closed down "B" mill which was employing 70 people and maintenance and also laid off one shift at the planer, employing 15 people. On April 18, 1980, there were further lay-offs. The company shut down the planer. There are now only 37 people left working and this is very unstable. We suspect that within a very short time the mill will close down completely. This will leave approximately 200 people out of work. This figure does not include the contract loggers and truckers.
More of them are going down. The note continues:
This is the main industry in our area and our people are scared. There is no sign of improvement. We feel the government had better have a good look at the situation and do something about correcting it.
That is an appeal for help from real people, and this mill is in a small community. Certainly, there is a tourist industry in Radium Hot Springs. This city sits right on the edge of one of our greatest national parks. But in terms of stable year-round employment, the forest industry is all that these people have and all that many of the communities in that area have, both in the east Kootenay and in the west Kootenay and in hundreds of other smaller communities across this country. We must begin to do something about the situation.
In the town of Haney, which is found in one of the Fraser Valley ridings, there were 350 shake and shingle employees laid off due to market conditions. They expect a possible 150 more in the near future. At least 100 loggers have not returned to work, and it is possible that other mills will cut back. There

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
were 70 cedar mil! employees laid off, and all the other loggers were late in returning. Stories like that can be repeated by the hundreds.
It is not enough to have an employment tax credit creating a few temporary jobs close to the minimum wage when what we are facing across the length and breadth of this country is thousands, approaching tens of thousands, of people who work hard for their living, who are proud but are being cast on to the garbage heap of society because this government and previous governments have refused to take any concerted action to attempt to come to grips with their problems.
Sometimes statistics are sneered at. I recently read a cartoon. It was one of those cartoons which can be read, and it is not necessary to see the pictures. The cartoon was in the Castlegar News of March 22, and I believe that it was written by Jules Feiffer. The situation pictured is a little boy asking questions of a man behind a desk. On the desk is the word "Economist". It reads:
What's a depression?
Bad for business.
Yeah, but what is it?
A depression is when upwards of 12 per cent of the middle class is unemployed.
What's a recession?
Unsettling for some individuals but a useful hedge against inflation.
It sounds like government policy.
Yeah, but what is it?
A recession is when upwards of 7 per cent of the white middle class is unemployed.
What's affluence?
Good times!
Yeah, but what is it?
Affluence is when only 3 per cent of the white middle class is unemployed, and minority unemployment has levelled off at 25 per cent.
We are past that. Perhaps I am playing the role of the little boy, but I know that we are getting the same kinds of answers from this government as the economist in the cartoon gave. We got the same kind of answers from the last government- the "blue blip" between the two Liberal administrations.
One of my Conservative friends to my right had the absolute unmitigated gall recently to wonder where the New Democratic Party was when the Tory government was brought down without being given a chance to do anything in government. The Conservatives intended to give up to $375 to some home owners in Canada and to some people who wanted to buy homes. This was at the same time as their interest rate policies-and maybe the Liberals will have something to cheer about as well for a while-climbed continuously during their nine month aborted pregnancy in office, enough to raise the payments on an average home by at least $500, possibly $1,000 and probably $1,500 in a year.
The Conservatives expected us to be thankful because their government was going to give back up to $375 to some of the people. That is like suggesting that we should have confidence in the captain of a ship who sends half his crew to paint the superstructure while he sends the other half below to scuttle
the hull. The Conservatives complained, and they wanted to know where we were. I was not here but my party was here, and we were doing our job when we brought down that government because it had to be one of the worst governments in one of the shortest periods of government in the history of Canada. It was so bad that it even made the second coming of the Liberal party look good.


Mrs. Mitchell:: No way.


An hon. Member:: They weren't that bad.


An hon. Member:: That's going too far.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Apparently many Canadians thought they were better. There are a number of other statistics which one could quote. I do not wish to get into them, but there are a few lessons to be learned.
I would like to go back to the joint program of the Department of Regional Economic "Contraction". All of the companies to which they gave assistance-approximately $50 million in federal dollars and $100 million in Ontario dollars, all of which were taxpayers' dollars-were large, integrated companies, and many of them were owned by multinationals. Almost all of them were companies with integrated operations, not only in lumber, but in shake and shingle, plywood and-most important for our current purposes-in the pulp and paper industry which is doing rather well at the present time.
The pulp and paper industry is the only sector of the forest industry that is showing strength at this point in our history. Why does that assistance go to the sector which should be strong? Simply to reward them for their lack of initiative in not keeping their plants up to date in the past when they were earning good money? They were doing their job badly, but they are one of the few industries that have really made it on the differential between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar. It has been cream for the pulp and paper industry, and it is still doing rather well. They are the people whom this government and the Prime Minister believe need assistance most. At least, that is to whom the government is giving assistance.
I said earlier that 1 wanted to comment for a few moments on the actions of other governments. One might classify the new program for assistance to the house building industry, $160 million, in the United States as peanuts, but at least it is a start. In the context of the United States $160 million does not go very far. Nor would $16 million in a Canadian context go very far, but at least it would be a beginning.
I do not often have very much of a favourable nature to say of the present government of British Columbia, but a few months ago it became involved in a program, whatever its difficulties, in which, by using approximately $7 million, it generated $200 million in terms of mortgage loan assistance to people for new housing starts. That is perhaps one of the few and only reasons why British Columbia housing starts in the first period of this year had a slightly better performance than the rest of the country.
April 29, 1980

I am not suggesting that the federal government make a duplicate copy of the B.C. program, nor am I suggesting that it make a carbon copy of the United States program; but I am pleading with it to do something besides giving away up to S50 million to large, integrated companies that are not in difficulty for the purpose of eliminating hundreds of jobs, in this case throughout northwestern Ontario.
The Globe and Mail of today had an article in its business section headed "Bond prices spurt higher as large U.S. banks reduce prime rate to 18.5 per cent". The article is on page B3. Again, what it says is rather shocking and is an indication, I suppose, of this government's real policy at a time when it should be doing something to create demands in housing, for our forest products, lumber and plywood, to a meaningful extent within Canada through a new approach to interest rates.
The article reads in part:
The U.S. authorities' stance contrasts sharply with that of the Bank of Canada, which has re-established a painfully tight grip on the Canadian banking system and is resisting the downward move in Canadian short-term rates.
The Canadian central banks' aim is to restore-
What they call-
-a more normal spread between Canadian and U.S. interest rates as the year progresses, according to economist Michael Manford of Merrill Lynch Royal Securities Limited of Toronto.
The article goes on to quote Mr. Manford:
In all likelihood this will be accomplished by slowing the decline in Canadian prime rates until U.S. rates fall below them, he wrote in the firm's Capital Markets Letter. Thus the Canadian prime rate is likely to average 14 to 14.5 per cent by year-end, compared with 13 per cent in the United States.
At the moment we have the advantage and can try to keep our industry going a little better than theirs. Their unemployment statistics are absolutely astronomical. Why in heaven's name is the government and the Bank of Canada bent on following a policy that will drive us further and further into national bankruptcy and put tens of thousands more of our people out of work?


An hon. Member:: It is the national Liberal employment policy.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It certainly seems to be. It is not because they have not had advice.
A Canadian Press story which appeared in the Nelson Daily News on March 6 reported in part as follows:
The government could create 100,000 additional jobs through a reduction in interest rates and some fiscal stimulus, says the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy in a study released Wednesday.
Fiscal stimulus refers to tax cuts or incentives, or both.
It goes on to suggest that the government should be taking deliberate action to lower interest rates. This is in line with what the New Democratic Party has been trying to get across for some time. It would turn the whole thing around.
The International Woodworkers of America met with the previous government but 1 do not think they have yet had a
Employment Tax Credit Act
chance to meet with the present government. They presented a rather comprehensive brief to the former prime minister which discussed the impact of current interest rates on the wood products industry in British Columbia. It is a rather detailed brief of some 25 pages and accompanying statistics. It offered a well presented and documented argument and attempted to persuade the government of the day to reverse its disastrous policy on interest rates. I suggest it should be required reading for members of this government. They have heard the arguments and the facts.
Some of the top economists as well as influential groups and economic bodies in the country have suggested that the government turn its policies around. Instead of that, what we get is a renewal of the employment tax credit program. Thousands of people are being thrown out of well-paid jobs-people with mortgages, people with families, with bills to pay, with credit cards-yet incentives are still being given to finance companies, credit card companies and others so that they can advertise and increase the demand for credit. We have been suck-ered by an industry which our public policy tends to assist in this endeavour. The present policies will throw thousands of people out of work and a continuation of the tax credit program will only offer some of them temporary jobs at or near the minimum wage. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
People who have been used to earning $10, $11 or $12 an hour are not fussy about accepting a short term job and losing their right to unemployment insurance benefits in order to take it. If they do not, then, of course, our Conservative friends and perhaps a couple of hon. members opposite are going to accuse them of being welfare bums who do not want to work!
Who should have to work at those rates, Mr. Speaker, in a country that has the potential and, hopefully, the ability to get its act together and produce wealth per capita such as no other country in the world can dream of? To ask our people to live below the poverty level is worse than ridiculous; it is almost criminal.
My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) borrowed a phrase from me the other day. Indeed, I invited him to use it and he did to open his address. I should like to close with the same quotation. As the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain thought it suitable to open the subject, I, too, can think of no better phrase with which to close. Perhaps even some of my Conservative friends would listen to John Foster Dulles, who said that "the measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it is the same problem you had last year".
We not only have the same problem we had last year, Mr. Speaker, we have a worse one. We seem bound and determined, as a matter of deliberate public policy, to further complicate it and make it worse. We go off in both directions, Mr. Speaker. We appear to have a schizophrenic government.
Perhaps I should wonder if the words of Frank Scott in his poem about Mackenzie King are not somewhat appropriate. He wrote that "We had no shape because he would not allow

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
us to take sides, and no sides because he would not allow us to take shape".
Do we have a jellyfish? Maybe, Mr. Speaker, but we do not need a jellyfish. We need a government that takes some hard, tough decisions and begins to move this country in a direction where people who want to work can work, where people who want homes can have homes, good jobs with good rates of pay. It can be done if the government will listen to some of the advice offered, not only by the opposition but by many of their own so-called experts.
1 plead with the government to listen; I plead with the government to act. I plead with them to get their act on track and try to be just a little more consistent in the pursuit of their economic policy.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the next hon. member, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Energy-Oil pricing package-Discussion with provinces; the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek)-External Affairs-Boycotting of Moscow Olympics-Government position on other sports activities with Soviets; the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Alleged illegalities committed by members of force.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT RESPECTING EXTENSION OF PROGRAM PERIOD The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I associate myself with the many kind remarks that have been made concerning you and may I ask you to convey my best wishes to Madam Speaker for success in conducting the business of this chamber. I have known both you, sir, and Madam Speaker for a long time and I have confidence in the impartiality you have already demonstrated in many areas. I know that will be reflected in your attitude toward the chamber, the right of members to be heard and the good conduct of business. I know we sometimes have a tendency to get out of control. I wish you well, sir, and I wish Madam Speaker well.
The government caught hell today, Mr. Speaker, and justifiably so, for the blatant positions they adopted during the last general election with respect to what they would or would not do in the area of job creation. I regret the minister is not in the chamber. As a matter of fact, in the course of my remarks I shall express regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) are not present. Indeed, I am a little disappointed to see only one member of cabinet from Atlantic Canada in the chamber. That is an area of the country which is probably the most seriously affected, not only by programs being developed by this government, but which historically has been adversely affected by past programs. So many have been ad hoc, shortterm programs.
We can look forward to some 9 per cent or 10 per cent unemployment in this country, but in my area it can run to 25, 30 or 40 per cent, and even to 60 or 70 per cent in pockets of the black community. When I reflect upon the ad hoc programs of the past, I find the government's position during the last election campaign to have been farcical. They have been in power for only two months but before that they had 16 years to put programs in place. Ad hoc programs are not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
One of the reasons they are not good enough is that of every dollar generated in Atlantic Canada today, 64 cents comes in the form of a government-to-government transfer or a government-to-people transfer. That leaves 36 cents of new wealth for every dollar generated in Atlantic Canada. This is so because of a variety of reasons, but most important of all because of our dependency in recent years on government transfers on short-term government programs.
If we do not turn the situation around, by the end of the 1980s or early 1990s that figure will rise from 64 cents to somewhere close to 80 cents. There will be a difference of opinion, depending on certain factors, but in any event the consensus is that it will be very close to 80 cents for every dollar generated. No wonder there is disparity. The situation is a direct effect of ad hoc job programs. We hear it said that they are great because we need them; we take them because we have to have them, but they do not create permanent long-term jobs. What the government must do, and must do very quickly or it will have the Atlantic provinces as a cost to the federal treasury forever is to turn its emphasis in our part of Canada toward the creation of jobs based on our natural and renewable resources.
If the emphasis, the time and the energy that we do place in dreaming up these programs-for example, the one in front of us is the extension of the tax credit program-


An hon. Member:: You are always lost.
April 29, 1980


J. Michael Forrestall: I may be lost as far as the noise is concerned from the other part of the chamber, but I am not lost in my concern and my awareness of what in God's name is going on in Atlantic Canada. It is something a little bit more than I can say for my friend. If hot air were music, people like that would make fine brass bands, but they do not do very much for the economy of our country, Mr. Speaker.
In this chamber I have argued for a considerable period of time for governments to pay attention to the needs of the disparate regions of this country, to get away from ad hockery and the "couldn't care less attitudes" and to take the disparate regions out from under the need for government-to-govern-ment and government-to-people transfers. Then one would not have disparity. You do not waste your time when you look imaginatively or with concern to regions which suffer the way Atlantic Canada does. You do not waste your time when you do that. Quite the contrary. If you were to look imaginatively at Atlantic Canada you would find our renewable resources.
I was asked what we did in the fisheries. We offered tax incentives to those wishing to invest in the fishing industry, in new fishing vessels. That is what we did. What did this government do? It cancelled this program and took it away, preferring to give handouts. That is one thing that this government did.
We offered incentives to people to go into Atlantic Canada. We told them to invest in Atlantic Canada in our renewable resource and natural resource areas. We could then create long-term job opportunities and permanent job opportunities. We could then raise capital and start paying our debts to the rest of Canada. We are in debt to the rest of Canada, and 1 do not like it.
As a matter of fact, it brings into question the whole area of national unity. The other day I listened to a planted question asked by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Leduc) of the Minister of National Defence. It was so provocative that after three o'clock I reserved my right to rise later on this week on a question of privilege, a question of privilege which is a very serious one. As a matter of fact, now that I have reviewed both the French and English Hansards as well as the electronic media, I cannot make any charge and I am not making any charge, but it is rather interesting that the English Hansard reads quite differently from the French Hansard. The question had to do with jobs and with the need in Atlantic Canada to stop putting money into permanent long-term job opportunities and is an interesting one.
The question raised by the hon. member for Richelieu appears at page 414 of Hansard for April 25, 1980 and reads as follows:
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
1 should like to know what the intentions of the government are with regard to the future of escort ships in Canada.
That question was planted, there is no question about that. The reply given by the Minister of National Defence reads as follows:
Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member brings up the matter considering the updating of our Canadian armed forces, which process is making great
Employment Tax Credit Act
strides, the purchase of fighter aircraft and probably, in the near future, that of other material. With regard to the ships we must purchase for the Canadian navy, I think it is important to mention that the Quebec shipyards will certainly benefit the most considering that we have two shipyards which need help very badly, and like other parts of Canada the situation can certainly be improved.
That alone raises the question of whether or not the government has abandoned the time-honoured principle of tendering with respect to public service contracts in this area. But what disturbed me more than that is the record, and I wanted to check because it is not the way I heard it. My understanding of the other language is certainly not the best, as hon. members in this chamber will attest, but it is not without some knowledge. At page 415 of the French edition of Hansard it reads "les plus favorises". To me those words mean "the most favoured"; I repeat, "the most favoured".
What does that have to do with employment? It does not have anything to do with employment per se, but it does have to do with the morality of a government who, with a simple statement, can write off four Atlantic provinces, the province of British Columbia and all of the shipyards of the Great Lakes. I ask, why was this done? Because the night before on television the shipyard workers said Yes and presented a petition to Rene Levesque that said Yes. How do they counter that? By kicking Atlantic Canada in the ass.


An hon. Member:: Order, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you want to talk about morality? Do you want to talk about national unity?


An hon. Member:: Shame.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you want to talk about jobs and job creation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, we are once again witnessing a case of unparliamentary language being used in this chamber by a member on the other side.


An hon. Member:: Apologize.


An hon. Member:: Retract.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have to inform hon. members that I have been involved in other matters. I rely on the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and if in fact his language was unparliamentary, he might care to withdraw it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to withdraw. What I said was that this government, their morality and apparent concern for parts and regions of this country was submerged in the question of the referendum, and perhaps under certain circumstances rightly so. As a matter of fact, it

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
has been a kick in the rear end. I used the other word, in the "ass". I mean it with respect to them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: They have lost sight. 1 will withdraw the remark if it is unparliamentary; I doubt very much that it is. 1 almost put it the other way, that the asses themselves have ignored the rest of Canada.
What does this have to do with jobs and employment? Nothing directly. However, it clearly indicates to the rest of Canada that it is the intention of this government, if you will, to ignore regional disparity, to not pay any particular attention to very, very high unemployment in some regions of this country. 1 am speaking here about Atlantic Canada.
For the first time since before the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, Mr. Diefenbaker, led a government, there was no mention in the throne speech of regional disparity. For the first time there was no commitment in the throne speech to those regions of Canada that suffer extensively from high and chronic unemployment and from high and chronic underemployment.
The programs represented by this bill do much for our young people. This is just one bill, but there are a number of programs that are good. However, in terms of bringing Atlantic Canada into the mainstream of Canadian society, enabling our people to begin to pay their bills, 1 suggest to the government and hon. members opposite that this type of program is just ad hoc, short term, gap filling and does nothing.
One hundred permanent jobs will do more to correct the problem of disparity and to enhance national unity in Atlantic Canada than a thousand one or two-month jobs. You cannot build a future and a family cannot buy or build a home with a part-time job or with government handouts; it does not work. That is what we have here. 1 am not critical of the bill but what it is symptomatic of-that we keep putting band-aids on a very serious problem facing Canadians.
What else did we do about jobs? There is an opportunity available to this government to very quickly create an atmosphere in this country within which 25,000 to 30,000 new jobs could be created in the marine and related fields. I am talking about the establishment and creation of a Canadian merchant marine, a program supported by former ministers of transport; by Mr. Marchand, now in the other place, and by Otto Lang, who has gone back to private industry. Somebody sent him back there, 1 am not sure who.


An hon. Member:: Sensible prairies.


J. Michael Forrestall: There was also the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) in the last government. Indeed, under the last government a process of industrial consultation, development of cabinet papers, the development of positions, methods and ways of creating the type of atmosphere which would be conductive to the re-creation of a Canadian merchant marine went a long, long way. Indeed, if it had not been for the defeat of the government, in all likelihood by now there
would be in front of this chamber or ready to come into this chamber proposals which would have made that a reality.
In terms of 25,000 to 35,000 new jobs, the cost is $3.5 billion. Hon. members laugh at that. We paid $3.5 billion to $4 billion to offshore cartels to move our imports and exports. Why are we not using that money to pay Canadians on board the ships, to build ships in Canadian shipyards, to repair Canadian ships in Canadian shipyards and to protect our waters north of 60 degrees through Canadian industrial effort and entrepreneurship? We have not done any of these things.
A good start has been made. I am talking about jobs. This is the type of permanent long-term job-creation program that we need. There was no mention of it in the throne speech. I hope we can construe that as meaning that the work done to date and the progress made by the former government and by officials of Transport Canada is such that there is no need to mention it, that in fact it is virtually a fait accompli and will be before us in a matter of time. I hope that is the interpretation. If, on the other hand, the government has abandoned that program, they can be called to task. It would demonstrate that they wasted their time on ad hockery and have not paid any attention to those areas which will create the type of long-term permanent jobs that we need in this country if we are to grow.
There is just one other area. Where does the question of a Canadian merchant marine stand? Is this government going to go ahead with it or has it abandoned it? More important than that, when are we going to find out from them? There are upwards of 20,000 jobs directly involved in the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine if we only look at moving 10 per cent of the goods we produce for export and the goods we import. If we ever got to 100 per cent, we would have a very, very viable industry. Governments would have taken a very positive step to enable the Atlantic provinces to begin to pay their bills, to get out from under the burden of transfer arrangements which are too high. They depress our capacity to expand.
Development of the Canadian merchant marine would add another dimension. I will mention this in two ways. The Liberal administration prior to the present one had started to explore with the province of Nova Scotia the possibility of a sub-agreement within DREE under the general development agreement with that province for the establishment in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick of an ocean industries park dedicated to marine and marine-related activity.
With respect to the one in Nova Scotia, it had already attracted 25 to 30 very serious inquiries from new industries dealing with new technology related to the sea. Under the Clark administration, these proposals from the previous Liberal government were brought forward. They were developed, found to be sound and an agreement was prepared and drawn up. It would have been ready for signing by the middle of last December.
Where is that agreement? Is it the intention of the government to go ahead with that, because 22 of those 25 to 30 inquiries would have produced a little over 900 new jobs. They
April 29, 1980

were the types of jobs that would have led to the development of exportable technology in Atlantic Canada.
Where is the sub-agreement so that we can put the infrastructure in place? I am not talking about that now in Canada. I am talking about attracting to Canada technology that we can develop and export. That is what we need.
What can come out of the F-18 in terms of exportable technology? What exportable technology have we acquired in Canada in the last 30 or 40 years in the branch plant economy we run? How much exportable technology have the great multinationals, our friends to the south or from the United Kingdom or western Europe, left with us? What base have they given us from which we can develop exports and create Canadian jobs and bring dollars back to Canada? I suggest it has been very, very little and that very few jobs have been created by foreign multinational companies allowing us to develop technology to the point at which we can resell it. No, what technology they brought into this country was just sufficient to meet their own market needs here, you can be sure, not for re-export in competition, in many instances, with their own parent companies.
So we have to do these things. The incentives are great but they are short term. This motion asks for an extension of the bill for one year. What do we do next spring? What do we do next fall? If there is oil off the east coast of Canada, maybe we can develop the dollars we need to start paying our bills. Maybe we can begin reducing the need for government-to-gov-ernment transfers. Maybe we can begin to reduce government-to-people transfers by way of unemployment insurance, welfare and that type of thing.
I say "maybe" because we do not know whether the oil is there or not. We have been counting on it for four or five years and so has the government, hoping it will bail them out and that no further action will be needed. But it is not good enough. I do not want to gamble that there is enough wealth out there to create the type of permanent employment we need and stimulate the flow of dollars which would get us out of this transfer of funds grip in which we are held. It is like claustrophobia; it closes around one, takes away initiative and dulls the imagination. Obviously it has dulled the imagination of the government, otherwise we would not be here discussing what is essentially a housekeeping measure.
There is another area I wish to touch on and it has directly to do with job creation. What happened to the $50 million for Atlantic Canada which was in the budget of my hon. friend from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)? What happened to the $14 million for small craft harbour improvements? That money was intended to ensure that our fishing industry would have safer harbours to use.


An hon. Member:: What budget?


J. Michael Forrestall: The hon. member asks "what budget?" The budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) reintroduced here with one or two minor exceptions the other
Employment Tax Credit Act
night. How can the hon. member stand up in front of his constituents and look them in the face? If it comes to that, how does he shave in the morning? Isn't the hon. member just a little ashamed of himself? Wait until he goes back to his constituents next fall and they ask him, "How come I am paying $1.50 for gasoline?"
We had a program in place and I will give the House a small example. I have 15 or 20 fishermen fishing out of Chezzetcook Harbour along the eastern shore of Nova Scotia. Plans were made to dredge the entrance to that harbour so that they could get in to the inner station in times of storm or to unload, so life would be a little easier for them. Forty-eight hours after the defeat of the government on February 18, somebody here in Ottawa-and I suspect it was the Minister of Finance or one of his henchmen responsible for political matters in Atlantic Canada or Nova Scotia-had that program cancelled. "We didn't promise it; it was something the Tories promised and couldn't deliver, so cancel it and send the money down to South West Nova, between there and the riding of the Minister of Finance, where 90 per cent of the maintenance money and new money for harbours and breakwaters and port improvements has gone in recent years." Anyway, the program was cancelled. What has that got to do with jobs? It was cancelled in the same way as the $13 million for small craft harbour improvements was cancelled by this government, simply because they do not care, they do not need the money there; they would prefer to use it as an offset with respect to the cost of moving a uranium plant already established in one part of Canada, in the province of Ontario, in the Port Hope area, up to northern Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Give a cheer for that! Be proud of that! It is my money that you wasted.


An hon. Member:: Fifteen million!


J. Michael Forrestall: It is his money. It is your constituents' money. It is also money belonging to constituents in British Columbia and Newfoundland. But members over there do not care about it. Look at that expression! It is pure, absolute gloating. She has been here only a few months and she has got that expression. And how long did it take her to get it? Look at her! Did it take years to get it? Well, it will settle in, we know. We now know what is the hon. member's approach to the morality of government. "Yours by divine right, to hell with the taxpayer, it's only money".
Mr. Speaker, I started to talk about fishermen. I want to say one or two words in conclusion about job creation. Last week in Nova Scotia along the eastern shore we experienced one of those natural phenomena which, thank God, occur only once every ten years or so in which there is a combination of a surface storm and what the fishermen call a seabed storm. A week ago last Saturday the fishermen along the eastern shore of Nova Scotia set traps in readiness for the 1980 lobster season. About 50,000 traps were set. A storm developed in the early part of last week. To describe its ferocity I might say it

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
cost the lives of three fishermen, their boat and their equipment. The fishermen I have talked to personally, the ones I have surveyed, put 2,309 traps in the water a week ago last Sunday. 1 am talking, now, of just 14 lobster men out of some 300. Mr. Speaker, 2,072 of those traps, out of 2,309, were completely destroyed. In a good lobster season a trap will produce 100 pounds of lobsters, bringing to the fishermen between $2.50 and $3 a pound depending on the market. That cash is gone.
When it came to my attention last Thursday that the storm was abating to the point at which the fishermen could get out to check their traps, I got in touch with the office of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). The people there were not even aware a storm had occurred. I alerted them to the fact and asked that an assessment of the damage be started as soon as was reasonably possible-which was the following day, just last Friday.
By yesterday morning nothing had been done. By this morning there seemed to be a general awareness that upwards of 300 fishermen had lost their means of livelihood for the next four or five months. There was no program to do anything about it, no indication of any special effort to go out and help these fishermen find lobster trap replacements, no indication of whether or not there might possibly be available to them some interim financial help to buy traps, and no consideration had been given until early this morning to whether the government would even consider extending the lobster season.
1 mention this because obviously it is a very serious problem to lobstermen from the Halifax harbour down to at least Port Bickerton, and as you move further east along the shore, the losses seem to go down, as you can tell from these figures, of 250 traps set 226 are lost, of 220 set 210 lost, of 250 set 200 lost, of 120 set 100 lost, and of 128 set 103 lost or damaged beyond repair. No action was taken by the federal government. The fisheries protection officers in the area were becoming aware of it by last week, but there was no intervention, no special direction, no care and no concern from this government for the livelihood of men who have to ply the seas for their living.
It is the same attitude they have to jobs-"give them a handout." That is all you have in northern Ontario from this government. All you got was a handout, and do not ever make a mistake about that. They will give you hundreds of millions of dollars, they do not care about it. Do you know what it is? In job creation, they gave us $44 million three or four years ago to put in a water infrastructure program to service the city of Halifax. Of that $44 million, within ten days of the documents being signed, over $40 million was being spent back here in Quebec and Ontario. They stand up in the House and say, "We just gave you $44 million, what do you want?" We say we want jobs so we can start paying our own way, so we are not the poor cousins.
It was interesting to hear the member from British Columbia speak about the rough time they are having. They
are having it, no question about that. Our situation is exactly the opposite to theirs. For every government to person transfer in terms of the total stimulation of dollars in British Columbia, where for us it is 64 cents of the transfer dollar, for them it is the exact opposite. For every 64 cents which the federal government pumps in there in terms of pensions, unemployment, or government-to-government transfers, they are producing $ 1.64 of new wealth. So that is just the gap.
They should keep up their good work and fight for their own provinces, but in the doing of it let them remember that there are four provinces and the eastern part of the province of Quebec where underemployment and unemployment are serious, chronic problems facing this country. Those problems will not be addressed by short-term, ad hoc approaches to employment. We must, as a nation, start to be a little imaginative; we must begin to look at areas such as natural resources and renewable resources, areas where our dollars will have a better opportunity to create long-term permanent jobs. Until we have done that, you will have as a burden around the necks of Canadian taxpayers the million or million and a half people living east of Quebec City. I do not think that does anything for national unity and I do not think it serves us well, but we do not do anything about it and 1 think that is regrettable.
If I have a hope for the next four years, it is probably that in terms of jobs, of job creation, this chamber will come to recognize and will be able to bring to bear on governments a type of awareness and realization that, if we do not move, we will create third and fourth generation people in all or parts of five of our provinces whose lives will have been touched directly by some form of welfare payment from the 1930s through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We are now dealing with fourth generation people who are growing up, coming through the schools, who will be underemployed, who will spend a large part of their lives on unemployment insurance or some other form of government-to-people transfer. Surely as Canadians, surely as a responsible House, we can use our imagination and can redress this so that it does not become an accepted fact in the Canadian way of life.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State, Mines):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member had alluded to an announcement that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made last Friday about the moving of a refinery to a section of the province to which I am very close, I would like to begin by recounting something that happened to me this past weekend. I live in a very remote area of northern Ontario. I was wakened very early in the morning by a cacophony of sound which I found quite startling. At first I thought 1 was sitting in the House of Commons facing the hon. member and his colleagues. But no, it was a flock of geese, and I thought to myself: even they know when it is time to move north.
The hon. member has, in the same breath, justified the move. It was not only a political move-I deny that-it was a logical move. It was a move which meant that this government is standing by its policy to refine where we mine, to carry on further processing of our natural resources. I find it a purely
April 29, 1980

logical move, a move that will strengthen the regional economic base of northern Ontario. I am proud of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: Canadian youth suffer much more than their fair share of existing unemployment. They account for almost half the total unemployment figure. The employment tax credit program has been a useful means of helping young people gain a foothold in the work force. About 55 per cent of the participants to date have been in the 25 or under age group, split almost equally between men and women.
There is substantial evidence to indicate that the early labour force experience of individuals has a significant bearing on their later employment and income record. Jobs secured through ETCP, incidentally, have a fair chance of becoming permanent. The hon. member will note that particularly in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta, more than half the employers have indicated that the newly created jobs would survive beyond the 52-week maximum for earning tax credits. In Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec, more than 47 per cent felt that most of the jobs would survive, while the figure was 41 per cent in British Columbia. In the fiscal year 1979-80, 39,000 agreements were signed, and a total of about 51,000 Canadians were placed in jobs because of it. Small businesses employing 20 or fewer signed 77 per cent of all agreements, and 40 per cent of those were employers with a maximum of five in their normal work force. Something that was very important to me was that for women the program was an important source of jobs. Women represented 34 per cent of all placements.
The extended program, and new initiatives that will be announced soon, will take into account the need to place women in jobs, as well as others who may experience difficulty in entering the labour force. On the average, 88 per cent of the Atlantic region take-up was from small firms. In the prairies small companies represented 85 per cent of participants. In British Columbia the figure was 82 per cent, while it was 77 per cent in Ontario, and 72 per cent in Quebec. Distribution of jobs placed 51 per cent in manufacturing, 20 per cent in retailing and wholesaling, and 12 per cent in service industries. Machinery and fabricating occupations supplied the openings for 43 per cent of the new employees, while 15 per cent worked in clerical jobs, and 7 per cent in sales.
Last year just over 100 public servants managed the program. That is one of the reasons why employers like this program. They have told us quite plainly that it is because there is very little paperwork involved, just two one-page forms to be completed by the employer. There is an optional third sheet which is designed to simplify procedures further. But on the whole it works very quickly, very efficiently and well on both sides.
Employment and unemployment patterns vary widely in Canada. The employment tax credit program, successful though it is, cannot meet all the needs of the labour force in
Employment Tax Credit Act
the country. The extension of ETCP is an interim measure, but one that needs immediate help. This government is developing other employment measures which will be presented to the House very soon. They will be measures which address the diversity of this country and will be sensitive to the needs and opportunities in all regions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to extend the employment tax credit program for one year. It was first brought forward in 1978. It provides tax credits to private employers for creating additional or incremental employment. It provides for a credit to employers from $1.50 an hour in low unemployment areas to $2 an hour in high unemployment areas for those employers who make use of this program. Its objective is to provide 50,000 additional jobs at a cost of approximately $100 million.
Given the magnitude of the unemployment situation in this country, it seems to us, at a time when our unemployment could be compared to a major epidemic of pneumonia that should be treated with the most modern types of antibiotics, that the government proposes instead to use a mustard plaster to deal with our unemployment. Let us look at what the situation is. The latest figures for unemployment show, according to Statistics Canada, that in March of this year we had
969.000	people unemployed and an unemployment rate of 8.6 per cent. That is one of the highest, if not actually the highest rate of unemployment of any of the industrialized countries in the western world. Those are the official figures, but it has been estimated that the real figure for unemployment is not
969.000	but probably 1.5 million unemployed.
For example, in Newfoundland where the official figure for unemployment is 31,000, in fact there are probably close to
75.000	unemployed; in Nova Scotia where the official figure for unemployment is 40,000, in fact there are probably 65,000 unemployed; and in New Brunswick where the official figure for unemployment is 37,000, in fact there are probably 80,000 unemployed. The reason for the wide discrepancy in the figures is very simple. It is because Statistics Canada counts as unemployed only those people who are unemployed and actively looking for work. In many of the slow growth areas of this country, such as the Atlantic provinces and the Interlake area of Manitoba, there is simply no use looking for work because there are no jobs available.
In fact the situation is much worse than I have indicated because we have seen in recent weeks undoubtedly the beginnings of what will be major lay-offs. The three major multinational automobile manufacturers, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, have each announced substantial lay-offs in the last few weeks. I will not go into the details of these because the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) dealt with that a couple of days ago. But lay-offs in the automobile industry created by a drop in sales of more than 10 per cent over last year mean inevitably major lay-offs in the automobile parts industry, the glass industry, the rubber industry and the

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
plastics industry, all of which have as their major customer the automobile industry.
It has been estimated that in Ontario one in ten workers work in plants directly or indirectly involved with the production of automobiles. When that industry goes into the kind of crisis it is facing now, we can expect even more lay-offs than we have had up to the present time. What is true of the automobile industry is also true of the construction and forest products industries.
Housing starts are down. In most parts of Canada the building of commercial property has virtually ceased, as has the building of industrial plants and factories. All of these fields are in a period of slow or no-growth which, of course, means more lay-offs than we have had.
What is the answer of the government to the major crisis facing it with almost 1.5 million unemployed and 40 per cent of the unemployed being young people aged 15 to 24? What is the answer of this government? Well, I will come to the answers which we did not get from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) a few nights ago, but let me first look at the comments of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) who introduced the bill we are now discussing. A few days ago he was reported, in an article entitled "Job-Creation Programs Will Centre On Young, Women, Handicapped" which appeared in The Globe and Mail, as follows:
Employment and Immigration Minister Lloyd Axworthy says a job-creation package to be introduced in three to four weeks will contain measures to prepare high unemployment groups-women, young people, the handicapped-to meet skill shortages in the labour market.
Then the article continued:
Mr. Axworthy refused to say whether the Liberal government would spend more on job creation than the Tory government, but suggested it would not, stressing that Liberal programs would use funds more efficiently.
I am not being critical, but if the private sector is not creating new jobs and, indeed, is reducing the jobs it provides, then there will be more unemployed. The private sector only produces when it sells its products and makes a profit. I am not critical of them; that is why they are in operation. If the private sector is not going to provide more jobs in the coming year, and the public sector is not going to put more money into job creation, then obviously we are going to have much more unemployment in the coming year than we had last year and the unemployment rate will go up substantially.
A few days ago we had what was really a budget speech smuggled into the throne speech debate by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. What did he say? We know what he did not say. We know that he ignored all the promises made by members of his party, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) when he was the financial critic for the Liberal party in opposition. He ignored all the promises they made while in opposition, and by his silence he poured cold
water on the implications of all those promises they made in opposition.
Let me illustrate that my judgment of what the minister said in his speech of a few days ago is not just criticism by a politician in an opposition party, which I am. Columnists who write about what goes on in Parliament and analyze what members of government say, were unanimous in their judgment that the minister had nothing but gloom and doom for the coming year.
Wayne Cheveldayoff stated in The Globe and Mail of March 27, 1980, reporting on a study issued by the Conference Board:
Because of the U.S. economic slowdown, Canada's economy will show no real growth in 1980, the board . . . says in its regular quarterly economic forecast.
As a result, employment growth will slow down and unemployment will rise from the latest monthly rate of 7.4 per cent.
It will probably be more than that; probably over 8 per cent. The article continues:
On the inflation front, the worsened U.S. trend will spill over into Canada and the year-to-year rise in the consumer price index, currently less than 9.5 per cent, will rise to 10.1 per cent by Christmas. For 1980 as a whole, inflation will be 9.7 per cent, up from 9.1 per cent last year.
The board believes this forecast to be a minimum because it has assumed a $l-a-barrel rise in the wellhead price of oil later this year. If oil prices rise faster, so will the inflation rate.
I am sure, as I am sure every member in this House is, that oil prices will go up more than we have calculated.
Don McGillivray in the Financial Times, April 28, 1980, wrote:
Finance Minister Allan MacEachen revealed last week that the economy is in worse shape than when the Crosbie budget came down last year-and the Liberals have even fewer clues than the Tories about what to do to improve it.
Then he goes on to write:
It is obvious, of course, that a September budget-
He is assuming, on the basis of what the minister has already indicated, that we will not get a budget until next September. The article states:
-a September budget will do little to change the adverse economic projections made by MacEachen. Since December, the Finance department's forecast for economic growth in 1980 has been cut to a stagnation level of 0.5 per cent from 1 per cent.
That 1 per cent had been previously calculated. David Crane in the Toronto Star April 22, 1980, writes:
Our economy is headed for tough times, with both inflation and unemployment getting much worse during the next few months. This was the grim message Finance Minister Allan MacEachen delivered in his surprise economic statement in the House of Commons last night.
What he didn't tell the country is what he intends to do about it, or even when he plans to come up with a budget that spells out his economic strategy.
Later he writes:
Turning to the grim state of the economy, MacEachen said there would be virtually no growth, probably just 0.5 per cent this year, while unemployment would average 8 per cent and the consumer price index would rise 10 per cent.
Then Mr. Crane goes on to state substantially what I said a few minutes ago:
Many sectors of the economy will be weak. These include: Export industries such as lumber, mineral products and autos; residential construction, which has been dealt a solar-plexus punch by high interest rates; government spending on
April 29, 1980

goods and services; and the inventories of raw materials, parts and finished goods that industry keeps on hand to meet future demand.
That is the situation. We are staring at 11 per cent inflation, with less than 1 per cent growth in production. We will now have to contend with record post-war unemployment this year. Manufacturing is off, and is expected to remain so or get worse during most of 1980. We are going to face unemployment of 8.5 per cent, with an increase of approximately
135,000	more unemployed than we had last year.
It has been estimated by the Purchasing Management Association of Canada, which monitors manufacturing industry hiring each month, that its members began laying off employees in November for the first time in at least a year. The association noted that new orders were falling off sharply and that production declines were noted by 31 per cent of the companies surveyed, or roughly twice the percentage of those who reported increases. The association stated this was another turnaround from early 1979 experience. It also noted that industrial production in Canada, which moved ahead smartly during the third quarter of 1979 after declining over the previous three months, was back on the downgrade as of last November.


Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there have been some consultations with my colleagues, the leaders of the opposition parties in the House, and I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw motion No. 2 under government business, to be replaced by the following motion that I shall read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


Yvon Pinard: I must say, sir, that after consultation there seems to be unanimous consent that this motion be put now and agreed on. If I may do so, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais):
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1980-1981, shall be reported or be deemed to have been reported from the several standing committees no later than May 9, 1980;
Business of Supply
That when the House reaches government orders on May 13, 1980, the Speaker shall put, forthwith and successively, without amendment or debate, every question that may be necessary to dispose of any motion relating to interim supply, the said supplementary estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any opposed item in the said supplementary estimates and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, for the passage at the first and second reading stages of the bill based thereon and all of the time provided for the consideration of government orders on May 14 and May 15, 1980, shall be allotted to the consideration of the committee of the whole stage of the bill and that all questions necessary to dispose of all remaining stages of the said bill shall be put and decided without debate or amendment no later than fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment on May 15, 1980; and
That, for the year 1980, Standing Order 58 shall be amended as follows:
(i)	by replacing in section (5) thereof the word "five" with the word "eighteen" and by deleting the words "Thirteen additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30";
(ii)	by replacing in section (9) thereof the word "two" with the word "four";
(iii)	by replacing in section (14) thereof the words "March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year" with the words "April 30"; and
(iv)	by replacing in section (14) thereof the words "May 31 in the then current fiscal year" with the words "November 10".
provided:
(i)	that at least ten of the days allotted for the consideration of the business of supply shall be after September 1 and that, no later than fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on the seventh last day so provided, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put all questions necessary to dispose of any business pursuant to a motion or motions of which notice has been given pursuant to section (4) of Standing Orer 58 and the first and second readings of any bill based on any such motion without further debate or amendment; and
(ii)	that the remaining six allotted days shall be divided into three periods of two days each and that not less than twenty-four hours before the first day in each such period, members in opposition to the government shall give notice of the name of a department or agency the estimates of which are to be considered in Committee of the Whole on the aforementioned bill during the two day period; and
(iii)	that on the second day of each such period the hours of sitting shall be from 2 p.m. to 12 a.m., there shall be no private members' business, the evening interruption shall not take place and proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 40 shall be suspended; and
(iv)	that at the specified time of adjournment on the last allotted day the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the aforementioned bill at all remaining stages without further debate or amendment in the same manner mutatis mutandi as provided in section (10) of Standing Order 58.
This is the new motion which has been put with unanimous consent and agreed to by all parties.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) the government House leader is quite right. There have been some discussions with respect to how we might do two things: satisfy the necessary problems which the President of the Privy Council faces with respect to estimates on the one hand and, on the other hand, to satisfy what we believe are the legitimate rights of the opposition, to deal with certain ministers in terms of the operations of their departments as revealed in the estimates, on the floor of the House of Commons, rather than in committees, as was mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
1 believe, as it has been described, that this motion provides a road map by which we might accomplish those two things.
542

April 29, 1980
Business of Supply
There are some minuscule matters which are well known to the President of the Privy Council and to the House leader for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that would be subject to some discussion in order to get us along the road. For instance, there is the question of how we would deal with the situation in which a minister might have completed his examination by the House prior to the end of, let us say, the first day period or prior to the end of the second day period, and what might happen then.
This motion does provide the essence of the agreement, to establish in a different way some of the things that we would like to have established. It follows generally the spirit of the amendment that was put by the hon. member for St. John's West, except for the unlimited time clause. We are prepared to accept the motion on that basis. In paragraph 3 on page 2 there is reference to 12 a.m., and I would like to make it clear that it was never part of the discussions that we would run all night until 12 noon. The 12 a.m. refers to 12 midnight, just so there is no doubt.
We have made some progress. We accept the terms and are prepared to live with them. Of course, as we go along the road outlined by this road map, I am satisfied that any questions raised can be resolved by discussion in good faith.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend my two friends, the other House leaders, on their willingness yesterday to have that day's debate adjourned so that we could have the consultations which have taken place since that time. May I, as one who watched these two gentlemen give and take-I was the innocent third party as it were-


Walter David Baker: Innocent!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -commend each of them for the give and take atmosphere and for bargaining in good faith. It was a commendable exercise, and 1 offer my commendation to my two fellow House leaders.
We have come up with a good arrangement for this unusual situation. I believe that it meets the points which were pressed by both sides. I am also hopeful that, as an experiment, it might give us some guidance for further thought about how we handle the estimates in 1981-82, 1991-92, and so on. All told, it is a good agreement, and we are prepared to give it our support. I trust that we can now make it a House order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to point out that I am pleased that both my colleagues are satisfied with the agreement and I hope we will continue to work in a spirit of co-operation so that on one hand the proceedings of the House will be efficient and, on the other hand, the rights of the opposition will be respected.
So that is a fine example we are giving today of the agreement which can be reached when we negotiate together and in good faith, and we will continue to work, in that spirit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As I understand it, the motion put forward by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) yesterday has been withdrawn by unanimous consent, the order relating thereto has been discharged, a new motion has been substituted with the unanimous consent of the House, and hon. members are now prepared to give unanimous consent to making this new motion an order. Do I have agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.08 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy, that Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that I spoke before the dinner time adjournment I put on record the sad state of our economy, the fact that unemployment is close to one million, according to figures published by Statistics Canada and that our rate of inflation and the cost of living in 1980 are likely to increase by 10 per cent, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). We are facing both high unemployment and a sharp increase in the cost of living in 1980.
I also put on the record the assessment of a number of people who write regularly in Canadian newspapers on economic matters, of the speech made by the Minister of Finance some days ago during the throne speech debate. At that time I said the government has offered no programs, no proposals, and no solutions to the problems we face. Now 1 want to put on the record the criticisms which the spokesman for the official opposition before the last election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), made in the short period when the Conservative party formed the government. I shall compare what they said then with what they are saying now. The party to which I belong has often been accused of promising people things which cannot be implemented, and we have been told we can promise those things because we are not likely to form a government in the near future.

April 29, 1980


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Monique Bégin: That is very true.


David Orlikow: If there is one party in this country that should know what it can do for the people of Canada, what the economy can bear, and what governments can do, Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal party. After all, they have been the government of this country for most of the last 60 years.
Let us look at some of the things the Liberals promised the people of Canada, in Parliament, or on the campaign trail a few months ago. I shall put on the record some of the things they said, and compare them with the silence of the government, particularly that of the Minister of Finance.
An interview with the leaders of the three major parties was reported in The Globe and Mail on February 13, 1980, in part, as follows:
If, for instance, the private sector is not creating enough jobs to put the labor force to work, then I see no reason at all why the government shouldn't take a larger proportion of the gross national product in order to create jobs-
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the private sector is not producing the jobs, yet what do we get from the government? The Minister of Finance offers virtually nothing. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has made a proposal to spend $100 million, which will reduce the rate of unemployment, at most, by .5 per cent.
The Prime Minister is further reported in the same interview as having this to say about high interest rates:
-we would keep interest rates down and we would make sure that they go lower by controlling inflation-
When the Conservatives formed the government the interest rate was 14 per cent; since the Liberals formed the government it has gone up by around 2 per cent.
An article in the Toronto Star of February 11, 1980, reports the Prime Minister talking about how the Liberals would manage the economy. He said:
I would want to manage the economy in such a way that interest rates would in fact come down, not because of act of government intervention, but because the economy would be administered in a sounder way.
Yet the Minister of Finance is forecasting more unemployment in the coming year and a 10 per cent rate of inflation.
The Toronto Star on February 13, before his party formed the government, reported the Prime Minister's address to the Advertising and Sales Club of Toronto, as follows:
We do not condemn Mr. Clark for failing to solve the problems of inflation, unemployment and high interest rates in six months. That would have been an unfair and unrealistic expectation.
We condemn him for budgeting to make our problems worse. Nowhere is that more true than in Ontario.
The Clark budget, if we had not defeated it, would have jolted Ontario with such a sharp increase in energy costs as to bring economic growth to a virtual standstill-
That was in February. Here we are in April. What did the Liberal Minister of Finance tell us? He told us there would be no growth at all in this coming year, no growth at all in
Employment Tax Credit Act
Canada. But when you realize that in Alberta and Saskatchewan there are quite sharp increases in the GNP, it means in fact a reduction in the GNP in Ontario. That is the difference between the Liberals when they are in opposition and the Liberals when they are in office.
I want to turn now to some of the things which were said by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, whose bill we are now debating. If there is one person who is an example of the Liberal party it is the present Minister of Employment and Immigration because there is such a contrast between what he says when he is in opposition and how little he says when he is in government. I have a few of the things that he has said, in front of me. On January 10, dealing with housing, he said this:
The first requirement to respond to immediately is high interest rates.
We know what has happened to mortgage interest rates since this government took office. As reported in the Toronto Star for January 11, the following appeared:
Liberal housing critic, Lloyd Axworthy said yesterday "a range of alternatives" on housing were presented to the Liberal economic platform committee, with a shelter allowance scheme as one option.
Where is that shelter allowance scheme?


Mr. Deans:: Where was the platform?


David Orlikow: My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), asks where was the platform. Unfortunately the people of Canada did not really press them on that.
Let us continue to look at some more remarks made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration with regard to housing. He was noted when he was in the Manitoba legislature for the constructive things which he said about redeveloping the core of our cities, and how we ought to do things in the housing field. I have here a speech which the minister made concerning the mortgage tax credit bill. This is dated November, 1979. He is talking about the Conservative proposal for the mortgage interest tax credit plan. This is what he said:
The Minister of Finance likes to say he is prepared to take recommendations and propositions. He has just received one, put some money into first-time home owners; put some money into writing down interest rates for those who have to renegotiate their mortgages; give bridge financing so that people can get into the housing market or stay in it. The major beneficiaries of this program are not first-time home owners but existing home owners who already have large mortgages at low interest rates.
At the present time in the city of Winnipeg, a city which both the minister and I represent, there is a petition being circulated by people who are facing just the problem which the present minister was talking about. They are this year in the process of renegotiating their mortgages which they took out five years ago. And five years ago the interest rate on their mortgages was about 11 per cent. Now it is 15 per cent, 16 per cent or 17 per cent. The minister has power now, and suddenly he has lost his voice and suddenly we hear nothing from him. He was great in opposition, but now he has disappeared.


Ian Deans: He has disappeared completely.


David Orlikow: And he is not even in the House.

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
On October 29, 1979, we found the present minister asking the following question:
By this time, the Minister of Finance must be aware that as a consequence of the high interest rate policy of his government, thousands of Canadian families are facing the horrendous prospect of renegotiating their mortgages at a time when rates have gone up anywhere from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. To put it in other terms, where mortgage rates have gone up, carrying costs have risen as much as $1,500 a year.
Since the minister asked that question in October, 1979, interest rates have gone up 2 per cent or 3 per cent, and carrying charges on an ordinary mortgage have gone up another $1,000 a year. What is the minister going to do about it? Nothing, because the Liberal party has now achieved office and it will be in power for three or four years so it can forget the promises that it made at that time.
Here I have a quotation from Hansard for November 6, 1979, when the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce spoke about the Conservatives. At page 1029 the following appears:
The present record level of interest rates, which is supported by Conservative policy, cuts back the ability of Canadians to buy goods and services of all kinds-cars, homes, food and clothing, everything people need. These high interest rates cut back the ability of factories and businesses generally to expand, to create more production and jobs. These high interest rates limit the ability of business, especially small business, simply to operate at basic non-inflationary levels. Therefore these high interest rates mean losses of production and jobs now and over the coming winter months.
Now that it is the government, what answer does the Liberal party give to these high interest rates which were and are driving small business to the wall? The answer is a tax credit for $100 million. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
The same Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce further on in his speech said this:
These high interest rates are also bringing the housing and construction industry to a halt, with a potential loss of thousands of jobs in that sector alone.
Of course it was doing that then. It is even worse now that the interest rates are up 2 to 2'h per cent more than they were when the Conservatives were the government. I could go on and on. This is the record of that Liberal government.


Bob Rae: Don't stop.


David Orlikow: I would have to make speeches as long as the former member from Nickel Belt made a couple of years ago; I would have to go on for days and days.


An hon. Member:: Where is he now?


David Orlikow: Hon. members on the Liberal side are asking where he is now.


Ian Deans: Where is the minister of trade?


David Orlikow: I can assure these hon. members that if they do not mend their ways, and if they continue implementing what were essentially Conservative policies, as they are doing in this session, and as they are doing with this phony budget which the Minister of Finance smuggled in here a week or so ago, many of them will not be back here after the next election.
Those of us who have had experience with the Liberal party over the years are not surprised at some of the things which I have quoted today. That is the record of the Liberal party going back as far as any of us can remember. Back in the 1940s-I know that my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is the only member of Parliament here now who was in this Parliament during the war- the then Liberal government tabled a white paper in which it set, as the objective of that government and of this country, a full employment policy. Mr. Howe was certainly not in the left wing of the Liberal party. Mr. Howe promised that the Liberal government would ensure that governments would carry out policies which would ensure full employment, not the kind of phony full employment of some of the well paid economists in this country who work for governments, teach at universities, and some of them are in this Parliament, or work for some of these foundations which are funded mostly by the big business corporations of this country.
These economists are doing very well for themselves, thank you. They have now evolved a new theory. It does not apply to them. It applies to other people. The theory is that full employment in this country is about 7 per cent or 8 per cent unemployed. Full employment is a situation where we have 7 or 8 per cent of the people in this country unemployed. That represents about a million people. Then they give us lectures about the fact that our generous unemployment insurance and welfare schemes are disincentives for people to go to work.
They want people to go to work. They do not want skilled workers such as electricians, plumbers, and machinists who are used to making $8, $9 or $10 an hour unemployed. They are angry and critical when these skilled people are unemployed. Many of them still have confidence that Liberal and Conservative governments will manage the economy so that these people will get their jobs back in the not too distant future.
Some economists and some politicians think it is terrible when these workers who have worked and earned enough money so that they can live well, be comfortable, buy a house and own a car, do not run out and get a job at the minimum wage. They find that scandalous. They think workers should do that.
For a long time it has been the basic fundamental principle in our party that this country has the manpower training, skills, education and resources, everything we require so that every person in this country who wants to, can do useful and productive work. We were not alone in that. We were ignorant enough to believe for a long time that this in fact was a principle which had been accepted by most people in this country, and by all the major political parties. We found out that is not true.
I talked about what the Liberal party said back in 1942 in 1943 when it published its white paper. Let's look at what it did not so long ago. About 17 years ago the Liberal government, headed by Mr. Pearson, established the Economic Coun-

April 29, 1980

cil of Canada. They set out five objectives of economic policy for that council.
What were those objectives? The five objectives were full employment, a high rate of economic growth, reasonable stability of prices, a viable balance of payments, and an equitable distribution of rising income. Let us look at how closely we have come to achieving those objectives as set out by a Liberal government not so many years ago.
When the present Prime Minister took office in 1968, there were 360,000 unemployed, 4.6 per cent of the labour force. That was fairly close to what full employment in this country really means. If we make allowances for those who are changing jobs, moving and so on, full employment is something between 3 per cent and 4 per cent unemployed. As I said, in 1968 there were 360,000 unemployed, 4.6 per cent of the labour force. Today, under the same Prime Minister, there are
969,000	unemployed, over 8 per cent of the labour force. This government has failed in its objective set for the Economic Council of full employment.
The second objective was a high rate of economic growth. The Conference Board has predicted that there will be no economic growth at all. What that means is between 8 and 9 per cent unemployed, instead of IVi per cent unemployed. It means a loss in production of $5 billion worth of goods and services which would have brought to governments in Canada-federal, provincial, and municipal-$2 billion in tax revenue. We have had no economic growth instead of a high rate of economic growth.
Third, reasonable stability of prices. What can 1 say? When the present Prime Minister instituted wage and price controls in 1975, he was going to wrestle inflation to the ground. Prices were rising, and I am speaking from memory, at about 11 per cent per year. We are now in the year 1980. Not only has the Prime Minister not wrestled inflation to the ground, but in 1980 prices are going to go up by 10 per cent.
The fourth objective was a viable balance of payments. The only reason we have anything like that is because the governor of the Bank of Canada believes that, to achieve that aim, we have to keep the value of the dollar up. In doing that, he has sacrificed all the other objectives which the government set for itself when it established the Economic Council.
If the governor of the Bank of Canada was not supporting the dollar with his highly deflationary policy, a policy of keeping the dollar up, the dollar would have gone down. Of course we would have had a good deal more economic growth, but the governor of the Bank of Canada, sitting in his glass tower and getting a very large salary, is quite prepared to put the people of Canada through the wringer. He, of course, does not suffer as a result of that.
The last objective was an equitable distribution of rising income. I do not intend to talk about that today. No one has documented what has happened in the last 25 or 30 years better than the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). She has placed on the record of Parliament and outside Parliament how completely we have failed in terms of
Employment Tax Credit Act
achieving a more equitable distribution of incomes in this country.
What has happened in the last 30 years, most of which time the Liberal party formed the government, is that the share of the gross national product which goes to the lowest one-fifth of the income earners in this country has declined, and the share which goes to the top 20 per cent of the income earners has gone up.
I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that if I believed, as she did, that we ought to have a more equitable distribution of the wealth of this country, and 1 belonged to a government that did the exact reverse, I would give serious thought to resigning from that government.


An hon. Member:: If you had principles.


David Orlikow: Somebody said if I had principles. I will leave that to the conscience of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am one who thinks that she is one of the really progressive Liberals in that party. This is where we are at the present time.
1 say to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that he has laboured tremendously and, instead of a mountain, he has produced a mouse. I say to him that I did not expect more from him. 1 do not expect more from his party and his government. 1 wish 1 could have made an entirely different speech. I wish that he would have surprised me. I wish I had to make a speech in which I congratulated him and the government for the progressive things they were proposing, for the important steps they were attempting to take in order to meet the real needs of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow one of those great orators from the New Democratic Party. 1 do not think he would have been capable of making an entirely different speech. I will take pleasure a little later in making reference to some of the things hon. members of the NDP have said tonight, because I take a different view of the problems which are besetting our economy.
Before beginning my speech 1 want to take this opportunity, since it is the first time I am participating in debate in the Thirty-second Parliament, to extend my sincere congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues in the chair, and through you to Madam Speaker, on your election to the distinguished positions you now hold. I know you will discharge your duties in an excellent manner.
What we are discussing tonight is, of course, just another of those stopgap measures to which we have become accustomed over many years of Liberal rule. Yesterday we were discussing the Small Businesses Loans Act; today we are debating an employment tax credit. I see myself here in the House of

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Commons as a member of a team running around a very large pipe which is beginning to leak, sticking a finger in here and a finger in there, and I see no sign of any preparations being made to rebuild the crumbling foundations of the system over which those people on the other side have assumed management once again.
We are inserting ourselves at every point in this vicious circle in which we are involved, a circle which creates an inflationary mentality, a vicious circle which creates apathy and indifference on the part of so many people toward the political process, a vicious circle which destroys the confidence people once had in our ability to be one of the great nations of the world. In the bill before us we are inserting ourselves at a point at which we hope to subsidize, so to speak, the small and large businessman in his attempt to attract workers to work in his plant. There are other forms of subsidy. We can subsidize business and hope the price will stay down; we can subsidize labour and hope that its demands on the economy are less; we can subsidize consumers. It is a vicious circle, and here we are inserting ourselves once again into this whole scheme of things.
When we look around the world we wonder how we got ourselves into this mess. If 1 make reference to economies in other parts of the world I do so because that has become a favourite pastime among those on whom we rely to provide us with answers concerning these problems. It has become a favourite pastime to blame others for the problems we are facing. After all, they say, inflation has been imported-for instance, from the United States which has managed incredibly poorly lately-their inflation rate is higher than ours, they have an employment problem as well, and even their interest rates are higher. So, obviously, they are pushing their poor economic performance on us.
Yet I wonder why it is that other countries with whom we compete, such as West Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden, can manage a 4 per cent inflation rate, can manage without unemployment, can manage a 6 per cent interest rate. I wonder about these things because when one compares the situation of those countries with the incredible natural advantages we have here, it is mind-boggling how anyone could manage a country which is the second largest in the world so badly. Those fellows over there have managed to run our economy into the ground.
We cannot forever blame others. We have some very distinct advantages, for example, our natural resources and our well-educated manpower force-I want to talk about this later; the main theme of my speech has to do with manpower training. The capital resources of this country are almost unbelievable, but the party across the way has been preoccupied in all the years it has been in power with the distribution of wealth where there was really no wealth to distribute. Now it is hoping to create wealth out of thin air. I will take the liberty of quoting a very modern economist who lives in our country today. This is the first time he has been quoted in the House, but I am sure it will not be the last. He is a friend of mine-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Frank Oberle: I am quoting his definition of capital. He says this:
Capital may be defined as subsisting in material goods, in the mental disciplines of workers, including professionals, manufacturing and commercial plants in place and functioning; goods and inventories available for markets; natural resources and the capacity to harvest and refine them; commercial, financial, political and social institutions in place and functioning.
His name is Larry Lewin and he lives in a little place called Crescent, British Columbia, where he is spending a lot of time writing down some of his ideas. He, too, has joined some of the leaders around the world in discussing some very fundamental aspects of the economies of the world, especially the need for new orders in the economies of the world respecting the new dimensions which have been added and with which we have been unable to cope over the last few years-the commodity groups, the cartels, the multi-national companies, the bigness of government, labour and corporations which are exerting such a great influence. All these things call for fundamental new ideas, and some reform of the system. But that is not what I want to talk about tonight except to the extent that it sets the stage for what I am about to say.
1 was glad that one of the members of the New Democratic Party is also related in some way to the wood-converting industry. He calls himself a mill worker or a wood worker, ora logger, or whatever, from British Columbia. I welcome him to the House. Obviously he knows a lot about the industry, although one would not think so by reading his speech. 1 want to say a few words about the forest industry because it is an industry which is particularly hard hit by high interest rates, the decline of the construction industry, the decline in the housing market, the situation in the United States. I am talking about an industry which employs one out of every ten Canadians directly or indirectly, about an industry which produces more foreign dollars than mining, agriculture, oil and fossil fuels and fisheries combined. It is an industry known to some as the goose which has laid the golden egg.
The forest industry is in dire straits today regardless of what the hon. member from the New Democratic Party has said. The reason the industry is on the rocks is that its basic 60 per cent of income goes into some form of taxes, licences, and fees, and that it is on the receiving end every time the government has mismanaged the economy, as the governments of the United States and the governments of Canada have done over the last few years.
Housing starts are at an all time low and nobody has the money or the confidence in what we are doing to wish to build a new house, to build a new future, and to build generally. The wood converting industry in Canada, in comparison with the industry in the United States, has suffered badly, not just in the last few months but over the last 20 years because of incredible mismanagement by this government. The lumber industry once had 31 per cent of the world market. That position has declined to 19 per cent over the last 20 years. The United States were heavy importers of lumber from our coun-
April 29, 1980

try. They held 9 per cent of the world market 20 years ago. They have now increased to 12 per cent.
The reason for all this is that we have paid no attention whatever in this country to the renewal of our forests. We have allowed our loggers to cut, from coast to coast and every year, the equivalent of a one-mile ribbon, without anybody spending any time, providing any ideas or money to ensure that new trees are planted and that the sustained yield is ensured for future generations to continue to harvest this incredible resource which is known sometimes as the green gold. We have spent no time whatever on research and development; we have spent no time and effort on training a manpower force and training professionals to help our industry to be productive and improve our techniques in forest culture, to upgrade our techniques in improving the species on which we rely to satisfy our foreign markets.
There is an incredible job out there of thinning overpopulated forests in every province of our country. There are thousands of acres of forests that are totally unproductive because they are overpopulated. What is required is a manpower force, some machines to go in there and take out four out of every five trees, thus giving the fifth tree a chance to become a convertible item in economic terms. There is an incredible job out there to replenish and restock 60 million acres of unproductive forest land which has accumulated over the last ten years, and yet here we are talking about an unemployment crisis, talking about the wood industry laying off 6,000 people in the province of British Columbia alone.
It is for that reason that I asked, under Standing Order 43, that the minister sit down with his counterpart and talk about a partnership with the companies and the provinces and work out a deal whereby people who are now suffering, because the machines and the mills have to be shut down for a while because of being overstocked with inventory, there being nobody out there to buy it, are given an opportunity to get out into the forests to plant trees, to do some fertilizing and thin out some of our forests. This is what we should so instead of plugging the dike with this investment tax credit, and instead of paying out unemployment insurance to the tune of $130 to $150 a week.
You should tell the company that this money is available; they should keep their people working and let them do something that will be noticeable and that will be an investment in the future. But, as you know, that is too practical an idea and really does not fit into the context. After all, these people are entitled to unemployment insurance, so why should we worry about it? After all they have paid into it, we have paid into it, and the companies have paid into it, so there is nothing to worry about. In the meantime, our forests will continue to decay, they will continue to grow in abundance without us having any use from them. All this really does not make sense.
If you wanted to compare again what we are spending in our country to foster and maintain this incredible resource for future generations, let me point out that in British Columbia, a province which has probably the most advanced forest management techniques, roughly $45 are spent on an acre in our
Employment Tax Credit Act
most productive forest land. Sweden, on the other hand, spends $300 an acre to do the same thing. That is why we are facing a crisis in the forest industry today. That is the crisis about which my hon. friend, who claims to know something about the forest industry, should say something. The companies no longer have the money to work with. The interest rates they are paying, and from which they are suffering because no one builds houses, affect them in other ways as well.
It is precisely at this time of the year that most companies in the country have mountains of raw materials in their yards because many of them can only log in the wintertime. Even a small company will have $2.5 million to $3 million worth of lumber sitting in the yard. Our banks have been very reluctant to lend, as you know. If a small forest company in British Columbia tried to borrow money in a chartered bank, that would have to be a trick and a half. Most of them borrow in the United States, and have to do so. I know something about that because I have been in the business for some time. Money comes from the United States, the interest rate is high, and companies have to pay interest on inventory that will not be bought for a year, so they are in dire straits; they are done for.
If it were not for the integration of these companies which have pulp, paper and other refined products, as well as plywood to some extent, to keep their logging and mill operations going, we would have very serious problems, problems so serious, in fact, that we would be debating here tonight, and probably some other nights, whether we should be bailing out the lumber industry as we are attempting to bail out the car manufacturers at present.
I cannot help but make a few comments on what has been said by my NDP friends who have a solution for all the problems. Half of them are economists, and their average age must be under 30. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said that if you have not been a socialist by the time you are 30, you have not got a heart, but if you are a socialist after you are 30, you have not got a head.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: I could not help but think about that the other night when I saw the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) on television. He said he is not concerned about the deficit because he relates that to a percentage of the gross national product. So the $14 billion, $16 billion, $17 billion that the government needs to borrow every year does not concern him at all. He did not mention the percentage, but it is "a very small percentage of the GNP". Let me talk a little about this deficit. How does a government raise money, and when it has finished raising money and is still short, when the cheques begin to bounce at the end of the month, the unemployment insurance cheque, the welfare cheque, the pension cheque, what does the government do? Of course it can raise taxes, but you can wear out your welcome quite quickly. Good God, Canadians know all about that. Then you can go and borrow from the citizens of the country. That is done by Canada Savings Bonds. Also you can borrow from pension funds into which the citizens of the country have paid. You can use all

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
these techniques to borrow. But this government has worn out even that welcome. There is no other place from which to borrow.
Canadians will not buy this fraud called Canada Savings Bonds any more. They are wise to this idea, they are wise to this fraud. They are not buying them any more and the government is broke. So what do they do? There is only one thing left to do-you go to the source of money. The closest place for us from which to borrow money is right across the border in New York. We are going down there hat in hand to borrow another $2.5 billion to do what should have been done, namely, pay our bills when it comes to our gasoline prices and heating oil prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: They are going to New York to borrow yet another $2.5 billion to keep floating. 1 wonder about these fellows in the NDP.


J. Michael Forrestall: They are laughing.


Frank Oberle: I wonder why these fellows should feel so much more comfortable owing their soul to a New York banker than owing it to the president of Exxon or the president of Shell. I would like them to tell me what the difference is.
When municipal leaders, provincial leaders, finance ministers and federal financial people go to New York to see a banker, they are asked all the same kinds of questions as the bankers in local communities would ask. He says, "What are you going to do to get yourself out of this fix?" By saying that, he will tell you how to run your country. Then he will say, "What do you have for collateral?" When we go down there as Canadians, we tell them we have gas, oil, lead, zinc and lumber. Of course we do. That is why we have a triple A rating. But he charges us interest as do the bankers at home. That has crippled our economy more than anything else and keeps us out of competition with nations which run a house on a balanced budget.
When we talk about constitutional reforms, I could mention some nations which have in their constitutions a provision that a government cannot overspend.


An hon. Member:: Which nation?


Frank Oberle: West Germany. When you have exhausted the taxpayers' welcome and when you have exhausted the borrowing power of the sources I have mentioned, you are finished; you are no longer bringing in any new programs. Incidentally, it is the nations which have the best social services in the world that treat their citizens best. Do you know why? It is because they do not take 30 per cent of the gross national product and pay it out in interest. They put it where it belongs. They pay it in pensions to senior citizens and they give it to native people if they have any. What will this bill do to solve some of the problems of our native people in the country, 95 per cent of whom are unemployed in some regions? I was over at the
Holiday Inn just before I came here this evening. Unfortunately 1 could not hear what the Prime Minister was telling them, but I am quite sure they will be impressed.
I would like the fellows in the NDP to explain sometimes how this whole scheme works which they have worked out. There is another saying about a socialist; a socialist is someone who has nothing and wants to share it with everybody. They have a lot of friends over on that side of the House; that is where they are all sitting. This nation has nothing left and we are going to share it with everybody.
Many Canadians are affording themselves the time to go back and dig out the budget that was defeated on December 13. When one does that, one finds some very serious and very profound differences from how we are being treated here. We had made a commitment toward a balanced budget and to bring our situation under control within a five-year period, to the extent where at least we could finance the deficit from domestic sources so that we would not have to go begging, pad in hand, to other countries such as Switzerland, Germany, and bankers in New York, asking them to bail us out. We have all this expensive oil on the east coast, and it is politically too risky to impose an 18-cent excise tax, so they would rather run our economy into the hole by another $2.5 billion. Apparently that will get us over the hump.
When one talks about intellectual dishonesty, these are the masters of it. Incidentally this term has been used here during the last couple of weeks quite regularly. It had been used mainly in the context of what is happening in the province of Quebec right now. They are saying that Rene Levesque is intellectually dishonest in posing an innocuous question about how the future of our country should be rearranged. Well, these guys are the inventors and the architects of intellectual dishonesty, because Rene Levesque-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I want to advise the hon. member that the last several days, as he and many other hon. members will know, have been my initiation into the chair. The question has been whether or not certain kinds of language are unparliamentary. I do not know the answer to that. I will do some research on the subject, but I think possibly the hon. member might want to consider whether or not accusing certain members opposite, or even a group of members in the House, of intellectual dishonesty is unparliamentary language. It is not my intention to come to some conclusion on that subject, but it has been raised four or five times when I have been in the chair in the last few days. I would ask the hon. member if he would, for the moment, give some consideration to the words he uses. In due course I will undertake to do a little research to find out what may or may not be acceptable to all members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.


An hon. Member:: Did you hear it?
April 29, 1980


Frank Oberle: Yes, I did. Mr. Speaker underlined what 1 have said. 1 know this particular language could be offensive to some people. It did not originate on this side of the House. It originated on the other side of the House in the context of the Quebec referendum and the Parti Quebecois. Mr. Levesque was accused of being intellectually dishonest. What I was saying was that he is no more intellectually dishonest than these fellows, because I look at the Quebec referendum in this way: there is a fellow whose term and mandate as a premier are running out. He knows that he cannot ask the real question, Yes or No. He knows, as everyone in the House knows, that it would fail because only 18 per cent in the province of Quebec, and some of those who are on the lunatic fringe, would want to leave this country. He cannot ask the question, Yes or No. But he promised that there would be a referendum, and he must fulfil this promise if he wants to be elected once more. So, he is buying time with this sovereignty-association consultation business. These fellows have accused him of intellectual dishonesty.
1 want to take us back to December when they defeated the government. They said that interest rates must go down. That is what the finance critic over there said. He said it three or four times-interest rates must go down.


David Michael Collenette: They are going down.


Frank Oberle: He would slump over in his chair and say that they must go down, that there were all these things that had to be done right away. In British Columbia the other day I had a fellow ask me, "Do you know why we are in such tough shape in the country? It is the backlash of the Conservative government." Can you imagine? If one wanted to apply the term of intellectual dishonesty, that would have to be it.
These fellows had to get back into power, so they promised low interest rates, housing, cheaper energy, and everything one would want. Now they are back in power, and what do we get? We get a bill called the employment tax credit. It is a bill that has been in effect since 1978. We are adding to it a little bit now. We are extending it a bit. We are raising the ante a bit. Then there was the Small Businesses Loans Act. We raised that from $75,000 to $100,000. That does not catch up with inflation, but we are doing things.
The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) was telling us how this particular measure has helped small business in the country. Well, it is really laughable. I want to tell Mr. Speaker that there are Canadians throughout the land who are looking at the budget of December 13, and they are looking at it very closely. I can assure the House that it is our intention to remind them as often as we can of what our intention was, what we would have done with the economy in the first five-year period and over the longer term. We would have restored the confidence the people once had in our ability to produce and in our ability to do things.
Going back to forestry, in that short six-month period we got together for the first time with the provinces and once again worked out a national forest policy. Let me quote from the policy a little bit, and let me in fairness say something nice
Employment Tax Credit Act
about the minister. I see him in the House tonight, the minister of the environment who has part-time responsibility for forestry. He was asked recently by the Pulp and Paper Association, which had its convention in Montreal, to make a luncheon speech. I must congratulate him on the contribution he made in respect of policy and to the discussions that took place.
The minister responsible for forestry when our party was in power, and the resource ministers of the provinces, entered into a commitment which the minister underlined and to which he paid tribute. He committed himself pretty well to following the trend that had been worked out and established, and I compliment him for that.
When I asked the minister in the House a couple of weeks ago whether he would take the important step of appointing an assistant deputy minister, he said that would happen within days. Some days have expired and he is nodding his head, so I assume he will probably do that tomorrow morning at eight o'clock. When he does, he will have my support. He and his department will continue to have my input and suggestions.
Let me review some of that policy, sir. The new federal policy was based on the concept that the forest sector is of vital importance to our country's economic, social and environmental well-being. Our rich endowment of natural resources has supported our rise as an industrial power and, to a major degree, it still supports our continued economic prosperity.
The forest policy also recognizes, of course, the right to ownership of the resources by the provinces. That is an important factor the minister will have to address himself to, because some of his colleagues do not share that view when it comes to oil and some other natural resources. The policy we have worked out very much respected the ownership of the resources in the right of the provinces and their right to manage them initially. The federal policy must, therefore, be based on the advice of provincial resource ministers.
It was the intention of the policy to provide continued support for the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers as the key to the evolution of a well co-ordinated and cohesive national forest policy. I am sure the minister will carry out that commitment and that it will provide no problems.
The Conservative government was committed to producing taxation schemes which would provide a climate for greater private sector and provincial government investment in intensive forest management.
In that context, sir, may I say that there is one company in the United States, namely, the Weyerhauser Company, which spends more money on research and development and forest renewal than is spent by the entire Canadian forest service. Can you imagine that? That is mind boggling, but it is the fact. In fact the expenditures in the Canadian forest service in real dollars today are only 50 per cent of what they were ten years ago. It is time for rethinking on that side on how we can
550

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
groom and keep this goose that lays the golden egg for the future.
The federal government intended to find ways and means to improve graduate training in forestry in our universities, and means of improving manpower planning with particular reference to woods labour in order to improve labour force availability and productivity.
I want to go into that because I think that is one of the crucial issues we are facing today. It was intended to find ways to improve transportation policies to accommodate the special needs of the forest sector. There would have been much greater co-ordination of the various federal departments which have some jurisdiction in the area of forestry, and for that purpose we would have seen the formation of a federal forestry sector strategy committee. 1 understand that committee has been formed, and again I thank the minister for that. It would have included representatives from the departments of the environment, finance, industry, trade and commerce, regional economic development, agriculture, transport and others. I understand that committee is to report to the new minister. It is my intention to continue to remind the minister to share the information contained in those reports with all members of the House.
All these efforts were intended to achieve the following key objectives: to provide scientific and technical leadership through research and development; provide and analyse national and international information and statistics as a basis for forest policy; aid in developing and certifying codes and standards for product performance; protect Canada's forests from foreign insects and pests; foster and negotiate improved access to foreign markets; and foster the potential use of the forest resource for energy. That has to be the most exciting prospect for the future. There is a commitment to write a new Canada Forestry Act to embrace the functions 1 have mentioned, and many others.
The council of resource ministers has, as I said earlier, committed itself to increasing the total timber production in our country by 50 per cent, from 140 million to 210 million cubic meters by the year 2000.
The problems of our forest industry should not be looked at in a doom and gloom manner. There are a lot of exciting new opportunities of which we should take advantage. There are some very fundamental things that need to be done before we can cash in and capitalize on some of these opportunities.
One of the real problems that is facing our forest industry, as with any other industry that is highly technical, is the lack of a skilled manpower base. I go back to what was said by Mr. Larry Lewin, that trained and disciplined manpower is a part of a nation's capital. Indeed, I would look at the human resource as the most important part of the machine. We have just done an incredibly poor job of ensuring that our young people who graduate from schools and colleges are adequately prepared to cope with this highly technical and industrial world into which they are about to embark.
I was speaking with a young group of graduate foresters the other day in British Columbia and it was underlined that there is an incredible shortage of skilled workers in this country. This goes back to the war years when, in the immediate post-war period, we relied almost entirely on immigrants from other parts of the world, particularly from central Europe, to come here and run these new machines we were building on the North American continent. When the economies of those countries in central Europe improved and they were beginning to rebuild their economies, Canada was no longer as attractive a place to emigrate to as it once was, and we had to bring immigrants from other parts of the world, particularly from Third World countries. We brought in professional and highly skilled and trained people from these Third World countries. We received a lot of criticism from other countries in the world because we were supposed to be generous and compassionate in relation to the problems faced by these Third World countries, yet we were stealing their most valuable human resource, their highly trained manpower with technical and professional skills.
What we did, instead, was to bring in unskilled workers from these Third World countries. That ended this influx of skilled workers, and we had to begin to train our own people, as well as some of the immigrants. Today we do not have any institution in place to cope with this problem. We spend a lot of money on colleges, through manpower, to train and retrain people, but, as my friend Lewin has said, there is just no way the commercial, financial, political and social institutions, as they now exist, are capable of producing the manpower resource with the training and skills we need in the 1980s in order to keep our industries in competition with those of other parts of the world.
Our productivity in the forest industry is fully 15 per cent less than that of the United States, and that is one of the reasons for that. Another reason, of course, can be related to the antiquated machinery that we work with, particularly in eastern Canada.
The unskilled manpower resource is the main problem why our productivity is 15 per cent less than that of the United States. Again 1 must say that it will require very fundamental reform of our process of educating and training people. We should look to other countries and observe what they have done in this situation. For example, in West Germany people who feel motivated toward a particular industrial skill are allowed, and even encouraged, to leave school at a much earlier age, at the ages of 15 or 16. These people are absorbed by the industry, and through the efforts of government, industry and labour unions, are put through a training period in the plant for as much as five years, depending on the skill which they are acquiring.
This training is carried on in a school atmosphere. The young person works in the plant for three weeks of the month and then goes to college for the other week. When the individual is finished, he or she is considered a professional.
April 29, 1980

The one distinct difference is that while this individual undergoes this training period he or she does not receive $8.30 for the first hour which he works. The individual receives a small stipend of 50 cents or a dollar an hour. Of course my friends in the NDP would scream child labour and child abuse, but that party is representative of labour in this country.
Adam Smith, one of the earlier economists, talked about the invisible hand that regulates the free market system and free enterprise. A modern economist-and it was not my friend Larry Lewin-talked about another invisible hand. He referred to it as the invisible handshake. It is the handshake that is passed between big business, big labour and big government. It is that handshake which is responsible when members of that party get up in defence of large multinational corporations such as Chrysler.


An hon. Member:: Time.


Frank Oberle: That party would like the government to bail out Chrysler. Regardless of what Chrysler has done to their fellow workers in Britain, they want to bail out that company because there is an elite group of workers which may be affected. If Imperial Oil were in the same straits, they would do the same thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I tried to indicate to the hon. gentleman that he might be coming to the expiry of his time. Because I interrupted the hon. member earlier on a matter of language, I will give him a brief period to finish, something like one minute.


Frank Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse the patience of the House. I have said what I wanted to say. I think that hon. members who are here tonight know what I know, what you know, and what every Canadian knows, that we can no longer put a band-aid here and a band-aid there. We must talk about fundamental reform of our economic and fiscal approach, our approach to our human resource, manpower training and our job-creation programs. We must talk about very fundamental reform of our political and institutional framework. Of course that process has begun and will accelerate after May 20, but I do not wish to get into that tonight.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I respect your admonition of a few moments ago about the parliamentary use of the term "intellectual dishonesty" as being inappropriate in a parliamentary sense. It is also inappropriate in a substantial sense. As 1 sit here on the government side and hear both parties in opposition say the things which they say about us, I would rather use the term "naive simplicity". It is naive, because it really does not deal very much with the world which we are in, and it is simplistic in the sense that it takes only one side and sees one answer as the only answer.
I listened to the hon. member who spoke before me and other Tories before him, for the last seven or eight years saying that the government is involved in too many things, that the
Employment Tax Credit Act
government is growing too big, that we were into things that we should not be into, all kinds of things which were more appropriate to the private sector. Or, if it was not appropriate for the private sector, they wanted to hand it all back to the provinces. This has been one side of the issue.
I have heard this same argument used with regard to the ratio of the net national debt to the GNP. This argument is constantly used by the parties opposite. I would ask the hon. member, when he uses that argument and with regard to his lumber business, if the line of credit that one would achieve would not be proportional to the size of the business operation. It seems to me that when one talks about debt, whether it is net national debt or another form of debt, one must put that line of credit against the size of the operation.
I do not see that anyone can relate the net national debt in an intelligent way unless one relates it to GNP. It is very interesting that under the government of the late John G. Diefenbaker, I believe it was 1962, that the net national debt as a function of the gross national product was something like 32 per cent, whereas now it is down to something like 20 per cent. I am not saying that in his time this was a bad situation. I am just not as sure that it is such a dangerous thing as the hon. member would seem to indicate.
On the other hand, the NDP has the simplistic notion that government can do anything and that there are no limits to what can be spent.


Bob Rae: Careful, Paul, you are treading on your childhood.


Paul Edmund McRae: I have a great deal of difficulty dealing with that philosophy. When one sits on this side of the House, one begins to think that we must be doing a few things right since we are being condemned by one group for doing too much and by the other group for doing too little. Somewhere along the line we have probably achieved a balance which most Canadians accept, and that is probably why we are here.
The employment tax credit bill can be criticized if it is looked upon as all that the government is doing in the area of employment. Of course, this is not the only measure that the government is taking. It is a limited type of bill which, for instance, is not designed for the kind of operation one might find in smaller communities, rural areas or large ridings. It is basically a bill which is perhaps more appropriate for larger cities, and that is why it is being introduced.
The bill is not being introduced to solve all the employment problems, and it is not the only piece of legislation which the government is putting into play. The bill supports certain groups of Canadians more than others, particularly young people who are trying to get on the labour market. The bill has a little more permanence, although it is not entirely permanent, than perhaps some programs such as the Canada Works program. To criticize this bill from the standpoint that the government is bereft of any other ideas, is nonsense. It is a limited bill introduced in the attempt to accomplish a certain things at a certain cost. It will achieve the kinds of results expected of it.

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
There is a whole series of other programs initiated by the previous government and this government which comes into play. Some are Canada Works programs and Canada works-type of programs which will probably be initiated in the future. There is also the manpower retraining program. It has been calculated-and I believe that the figure is correct-that the summation of all the programs in the Department of Employment and Immigration would open something like 230,000 jobs. This is a substantial gap when one speaks of unemployment in this country. To get around some of this simplicity one has to look at employment in perspective. It is true that we have one of the highest employment rates of all industrial nations; it is also true that we have the highest growth in our labour force of all industrial nations.
When 1 spoke in this House two or three years ago on this subject I used a chart which dealt with the summit group of countries. It showed that between 1966 and 1976 there were 146 people on the labour market in Canada for every previous 10 years; in the United States there were 128; West Germany had one or two less, but for most members of the summit group the figure was between 100 and 106. The growth in the labour force for the balance of the summit group, not including Canada, was 109 for every previous ten years; for Canada it was 146. That is a tremendous growth in our labour force.
On the one side there is high unemployment, and on the other side there is a record growth in employment among all the OECD countries, running between 350,000 and 400,000 new jobs per year. This is an accomplishment, Mr. Speaker. It is nonsense to say that we do not do anything, and it is nonsense to say that we do too much. There is a mean to be achieved and I think over the years this government has achieved it. To say that all the things we have done are wrong and that we have led the country into a mess is nonsense. We are living in a very difficult world, one that does not follow naive, simplistic suggestions. It is not true to say that if employment can be increased the economy will be better. It does not work that way and has not worked that way for many years.
There are many economists who believe that the Keynesian theories do not obtain today as they did years ago, perhaps because we are not as willing to try them as we used to be. In the early 1960s we used to talk of throwing a couple of billion dollars into the demand side to create a tremendous amount of employment and generate a lot of activity in the country. At that time the GNP was about $40 billion to $50 billion. Today it is $250 billion, six times as great, and we are talking about the same $2 billion-as if something less than one per cent would turn the economy around! This kind of thinking disturbs me a great deal, Mr. Speaker. Some of these things are counterproductive. Where there is high unemployment and high inflation running side by side, whichever way you turn you are going to create problems and not solve anything. 1 think we have to move piecemeal, though structural changes may be required.
One of the things that we have done in the area of unemployment that appeals to me is what I call the decentralization of policy. I support the notion of the federal government decentralizing its activities by moving the Precambrian Institute to Thunder Bay. If this country is to remain strong and have a strong federal government, the various parts of the government must be decentralized.
Decentralization of policy is not understood as well as it should be. There has been, however, more progress in the area of employment under the various ministers than in any other department. A very important advance was made when it was decided to bring the country into a series of regions and districts when studying unemployment and UIC, particularly the latter. This is very important in my area because of its location. In effect, what was done was to acknowledge that there could be a different situation in Newfoundland than, say, in Toronto, and a different situation in northern Ontario than, say, in Calgary, and that the various regions required policy differences which would come into play if the unemployment rate reached a certain level. I think this step was taken with a great deal of difficulty because of bureaucratic resistance.
Many backbenchers on this side of the House fought very hard for this change, and I would urge the minister to see if more can be done to differentiate between regions, not just regarding unemployment insurance benefits but in the whole area of manpower. I am sure the minister will look favourably upon allowing each region to set its own standards for manpower.
I should like to illustrate a problem that has not been solved by decentralization of policy, by speaking about a community in my constituency which is facing some very difficult times. Atikokan is a community of a little over 5,000 people. It had two operating mines, both of which closed down within the last year and one half. In fact the last one closed last week. In all, about 1,200 people were laid off by the closings. Under normal circumstances, if 1,200 people were laid off in a district where there were a lot of communities nearby, the people would merely commute to jobs in those other communities. If the lay-offs in the district were high enough to reach a certain percentage, then the UIC benefits would come into play.
Such is not the case with Atikokan, and I am sure there are other communities in the country in the same position. Atikokan is 140 miles from Thunder Bay and roughly 80 miles from Fort Francis. There are no communities of any size in between. To the south there is the U.S. border and north there is just nothing, so the community is on its own. The unemployment rate is as high as 50 per cent or 60 per cent. It is not a community where people can commute daily to other places to work. They have to find jobs within the community.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, that Atikokan is a community with a good future. There is another mine in the area which should open within the next three or four years. There are also other prospects for the community, and I hope that there will be full employment again in Atikokan within three or four years. It also has a very fine infrastructure. It is not the kind of
April 29, 1980

community that can be picked up and moved someplace else in short order.
Given the distances, the inability to commute, and the very high unemployment rate, 1 think it is important that the government consider a special designation for the community since it does not fit into the district designation. Even the 1,200 extra jobs does not push that northwestern Ontario district into a high unemployment designation. Since that is the case, 1 think the solution is to consider the community of Atikokan by itself. There will be, and have been, other communities in Canada in the same situation through no fault of their own, so I think we should give them a special designation and try to work out some solutions in terms of UIC, manpower thrust, DREE and particularly with CMHC.
I am very disturbed-and 1 brought this point up in the throne speech-about the attitude of CMEIC to the community. This is a community with a lot of good homes and good infrastructure. The CMHC attitude is, to quote the local manager who, I believe used the phrase, "I would sooner board the places up than do something with renegotiating mortgages." Communities like this, there are others in Canada 1 emphasize that, 1 am not taking the view from this side or from that side, but those of us from the larger ridings will have those kinds of communities, and in my opinion we should take a look at them.
1 would like to conclude my remarks by re-emphasizing the fact that all in all we have done a very commendable job employment-wise. We have had something like 500 per cent greater growth in the labour force than the average members of the summit group. We have created jobs at a faster rate by far than any other country in the OECD, or any of the industrial countries, and we still have these massive problems with us. The answers are not simplistic, they are not a lot more government, they are not government turning everything over to the private sector. The answer is a combination of a whole series of things which this government has sustained over the last 15 or 20 years.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to rise and speak in this Thirty-second Parliament, 1 would like to congratulate you for being appointed Deputy Speaker. I would particularly like to congratulate Madam Speaker for being elected to her high position.
1 am pleased to rise in my place and participate in second reading on the principle of Bill C-19, the employment tax credit act. In my estimation Bill C-19 is a budgetary measure dealing primarily with employment in all its ramifications. Let me say first that the national Government of Canada is supposed to lead and guide this nation in economic direction, in economic diversity, in economic growth and development and, to a large degree, provide considerable guidance in the generation of jobs.
The over-all policies and philosophical basis of government are generally provided in the traditional budget brought down
Employment Tax Credit Act
by the Minister of Finance. The budget speech to this assembly, and the nation, provides a national economic and fiscal perspective and fabric for the nation, for business, for the banking community, for labour, for provincial governments, for international institutions and in fact other nations. They all subsequently tailor their planning to this perspective. The same applies for any minister in the various portfolios of government. Each of them is responsible for the administration of vast sums of money, and their over-all basis for economic policy formulation is important for the nation to know and understand.
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has brought down no budget of his own. But he has done something; he has resurrected a mangled version of "Honest John Crosbie's" budget. Let me review briefly the budget events of the last four to four and a half months. So much has happened in the last four to four and a half months! A saga has unfolded in this House that literally dazzles the imagination and almost boggles the mind. 1 think that only the likes of Shakespeare could put in writing the drama that has unfolded in these last four and a half months in this place.


An hon. Member:: How about Walt Disney?


William J. Yurko: It is only Shakespeare who could catch in print, if you like, the intrigue, the intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy that took place in this House.


Bob Rae: Love's Labour's Lost.


William J. Yurko: That is understating it.
Just a fortnight before Christmas last year, the modern day prophets, Joseph and John, descended from the mountain of inspiration-which is somewhere near Jasper-and brought forth a budget that contained what I call the commandments of the new age, the eighties, that is, the decade of the eighties. After being duly inspired, the doctrine of that budget was as follows: free my people from economic bondage of big government and its wanton spending, and the new slogan, a very apt slogan, was "short-term pain for long-term gain".
I have indicated, and I hope to indicate to the assembly, the new economic commandments of that budget. 1 want to go through them very briefly. The first said thou shalt pay thy debts. The second said thou shalt live within thy means. The third said thou shalt save and therefore prosper. The fourth said thou shalt invest and multiply and become self-sufficient. The fifth said thou shalt be rewarded for owning thine own house.


Bob Rae: Thou shalt raise interest rates.


William J. Yurko: And now, what was the sixth? The boys are getting excited over there. The sixth said thou shalt pay more for thine iniquities, boozing, smoking, and driving.


Bob Rae: Thou shalt break thy promises.


William J. Yurko: The seventh said the poor shall be relieved from the burden of higher petrol costs. The eighth said thou shalt

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
not be a slave to thy government. The ninth said thy government shalt pay its bills. The tenth said our government shall not be our master and our lord.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: Two days after that budget came down with the new slogan to this place, which is the House of the Commons where, 1 understand, we have a lot of nobodies and some somebodies, a lot of the people on this side of the House-at that time they were the nobodies of that side-jumped up and said, "Kill it, kill it, before it takes root and spreads."
This new doctrine and new direction of paying one's bills and controlling the size of government and its deficit were too much to swallow. This was just too much for the nobodies on this side of the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the nobodies outnumbered the somebodies on the other side of the House, and the government fell. The government went to the people and the people rejected the budget of the prophets Joseph and John. But the saga does not end there-


Bob Rae: Tell us about St. Sinclair.


William J. Yurko: -because something else happened. A government sitting over there fought an election that can only be described in one word, and that word is deception. It is deception, deception, and more deception. One can say that out of this misty swamp of deception two new prophets came, only these new prophets were Joseph and Pierre. Joseph likes to be called Allan, but indeed his name is Joseph. They brought forth a new slogan. No budget, but a new slogan. What was the slogan? The slogan is "short-term drain for long-term pain". May I say that again because it is something that they should print in great big letters, tie to a sign and put around every member on the other side. A budget supposedly with a deficit of $14 billion piled on top of an impossible deficit now, "short-term drain for long-term pain".
1 could not possibly think of a more appropriate slogan for the behaviour of this government in connection with its budgetary proposals. If one wanted to indicate a new doctrine, if you wish, one would have to call it economic bondage equalized for all.
My, how they changed the commandments. If you will bear with me, I would like to indicate what they have done. The first one now has become, thou shalt pay thy debts with the help of the government. The second one says thou shalt live within thy means and government handouts. The thirds says thou shalt save and thereby prosper and pay half of it to the government. The fourth says thou shalt invest and multiply and become self-sufficient for government's sake. The fifth says thou shalt be rewarded for owning thy own house with higher interest payments.
The sixth they agreed with, that is thou shalt pay more for thine iniquities, boozing and smoking, but not driving. The seventh said the poor shall be relieved from the burden of higher petrol costs. No, sir, Mr. Speaker, now this government
say they are going to pay every cent that everybody else is going to pay, because gasoline is going to go up every bit as much as the 18 cents proposed by the last government, only they are going to hide the tax. They are going to put it in the form of a refinery tax on a barrel of oil. Deception again of the highest degree.
What did they do with the next commandment? Thou shalt not be the slave to thine government. Well, they removed the "not" and made it thou shalt be the slave to thine government. The last one, thy government shall pay its bill by borrowing more. The government shall pay its bill by borrowing more and more and more, indeed bankrupting future generations of this country, a country with riches beyond all imagination.
As an engineer I have had occasion to travel fairly extensively around the world. I worked in the United States for over six years. At one point I attempted to put down on paper the endowments per capita enjoyed in Canada. It literally cannot be compared with any other country on this globe. Indeed, what is prevalent today is that parents and grandparents anywhere in this world would give their eye teeth to emigrate to Canada, not necessarily for their own well-being but for the well-being of their children and children's children. There is no greater desire among any of the populations in the world that understand the advantages of Canada than to emigrate to Canada so that their children and children's children will have a future.
I am just going to touch on the Quebec referendum at this point because I hope to speak again on this matter. One of the things that baffles me is that nationhood, or the idea of nationalism, has been used traditionally in history to guard and safeguard-


Mr. Dawson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 understand quite well that it is the maiden speech of the hon. member in the House, but I wonder if he might be called to order because he has not even referred to the bill since the beginning of his speech, as several other speakers before him failed to do as well. I think this is an extremely important bill and I would ask members opposite to co-operate so that we can pass it. If they want to make speeches, they will have to wait for the debate on the budget or on the referendum. I do not think that it is timely, Mr. Speaker, to deal with that matter. We now have a bill to consider and I would like to have it debated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The remarks of the hon. member are well taken. However, in the past the Chair has always been very lenient during the maiden speech of an hon. member. I think tonight he overdid that. I would ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the bill.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the guidance you have given me. I would, however, suggest that I began my remarks tonight by indicating that this is a budgetary matter before us. It is a bill dealing with appropriation,
April 29, 1980

with supply. Therefore it is my intention, as 1 said at the beginning, to deal with the whole gamut of supply, to deal with the whole question of the economy of Canada as it relates to unemployment. Indeed, the referendum in Quebec bears a very specific reference and relationship to the well-being and economic nature of Canada, as well as employment, not only in Quebec, but with respect to the whole nation. 1 just want to make some brief comments on the referendum in respect of an economic matter. If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I will do so.
What I intended to say was that nationhood has two dimensions, one the cultural, linguistic and other aspects of it, and the other economic. Traditionally throughout history nationhood has been used to guard cultural aspects, linguistic aspects, the traditional roots of the people. With the advent of technology, the growth of the economy of the world and the economy of nations, a new dimension has been added to nationhood which is very profound. It is the dimension of economics, economic well-being.
Because technology, and I am an instrument of the world of technology, has interrelated the world economically and has interrelated all parts of Canada economically to such a degree, in order to enjoy economic well-being a new form of nationhood has evolved in the modern world through civilization. It is called a federation of parts, a federation of parts in which the cultural and linguistic character of a part can be safeguarded and maintained in all its aspects. At the same time, the guarding of those cultural and linguistic roots of a people can be integrated through a federation in an economic wellbeing of a larger whole, a larger nation, and this is Canada.
Canada is one of the oldest federations in the world. In fact, I think it is the third oldest. It has bound itself together with peoples in such a way that it enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. Its future economic well-being is related to maintaining a federation that needs some change admittedly at this time, desperately needs some change to recognize regional aspirations and regional needs, but it is the creation of mankind, and it is a modern creation which indeed ties together the ability to sustain a culture and a language and the ability to sustain all these aspects with economic well-being.
Let me come back to budgetary matters. Let me go back to what this government has brought before this House, the guidance it has provided us in the last several weeks and the guidance it will provide us in the coming months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member says he wants to talk about budgetary matters. I would remind him that the bill before us is very narrow in its scope and I invite the hon. member to address his remarks to the subject which we are considering, the employment tax credit act.


William J. Yurko: Again, I want to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that the principle behind this bill is job creation. The employ-
Employment Tax Credit Act
ment tax credit act provides incentive for job creation all across the land and is very broad in its scope. The bill before us brings in amendments to an act which deals broadly with the economic well-being of the nation and the creation of jobs in different parts of the country, a bill which has relevance to the budget and relevance to every provincial act in terms of employment creation. I would beg of you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the latitude you have given so far to hon. members taking part in this debate.
I should like to say again I am waiting for economic guidance from the other side as to the principles which should be established to deal with the unemployment problem. Where are the principles in the amendments this bill puts forward? Where is this budget which we have been promised? Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are people in this nation who are providing leadership, people who are providing economic guidance for the country as a whole even though it is not being provided from the other side of the House.
A most remarkable conference took place in western Canada during the last several weeks in the course of which four leaders of western Canada recognized that this government needed help in the field of economic policy. They recognized it needed help in terms of policies for the creation of jobs. So they got together, four premiers, in Lethbridge, Alberta, and put forward certain suggestions to assist the government. What did they say after reviewing the problems of the nation-not only of western Canada but of the entire nation? Here is what they said:
High interest rates are causing hardship for many Canadians and represent a serious economic problem for the country.
How can one create jobs and provide subsidies for job creation when interest rates are moving entirely against this type of action? The premiers are deeply concerned about the unacceptable and unfair impact of high interest rates on home owners, small business, farmers, forest workers, and the development potential of the west. Acknowledging the responsibility of the federal government for interest rate policy, the western premiers regretted that there had been little progress in meeting the mutually-agreed commitments made at the first ministers' conference on the economy on November 19, 1978, by this government.


An hon. Member:: One of them concerned employment.


William J. Yurko: One of them was employment. They were disappointed that the governor of the Bank of Canada was unable to attend the western premiers' conference to discuss monetary policy and the policy options open to Canada, matters directly related to employment and the measures necessary for creating it. The western premiers pointed out that current high interest rates are symptoms of much more serious structural problems in the Canadian economy, namely, the balance of payments deficits and the federal budgetary deficit. To address these deeply-rooted structural problems they suggested a number of proposals which could form a major part of a national economic policy strategy to avoid automatic track-

April 29, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
ing of Canadian-made interest rates with those of the United States.
What could be more relevant to this amendment, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William J. Yurko: The premiers agreed that a realistic energy-pricing policy is the key to energy self-sufficiency and the creation of jobs. Canadian energy prices must rise to reduce the disparity between domestic and international prices, they said, in order to create jobs. They agreed that the increased revenue generated by such price increases should be recycled into investment in Canada to reduce our reliance on outside capital and foreign energy sources. To create jobs, Mr. Speaker-a massive number of jobs which would result from self-sufficiency in energy, and we have the potential to do it in this nation.
What has the minister done? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has thrown punches in every direction even before the negotiations on pricing have begun. Indeed, he came out with a report by officials called "Analysis of the Impact on Oil Prices of the December 11 Budget Proposals"-I want to deal with that document later on and indicate the intellectual dishonesty of that report. That minister exercised the force majeure clause in a Syncrude agreement which put into jeopardy the Imperial Oil heavy oil plant at Cold Lake. If there ever was a project which would create jobs, that was it-jobs across the nation from one end to the other; machinery is going to be fabricated in Toronto and Montreal, across the nation for that project to create jobs for native people and Canadians in all areas. What bothered me about that decision was its timing. The timing was terrible.
This heavy oil project is the first of this kind. The Syncrude plant was the second of its kind. The Great Canadian Oil Sands plant, or Suncor, was the first. It proved the technology. Syncrude was the second. The Alsands plant is going to be the third. Then we are going to have a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, and so on. But the Imperial heavy oil plant at Cold Lake Alberta was the first of a kind, the initial commercialization of an in situ extraction of heavy oil from 2,000 feet and lower in the ground. It was vital for this nation that that project go ahead, and no impediment of any kind by any government should have been put in place to delay it or bring it into question. Indeed, the fate of this nation in terms of energy self-sufficiency is dependent on that process for the extraction of heavy oil.
So we have a minister on that side of the House, just about the time it was necessary to approve that plant, throwing punches before he had even begun to negotiate pricing policy. Mr. Speaker, 1 have a lot more to say and I have a few more minutes left, but I would like to call it ten o'clock, and 1 therefore adjourn the debate on Bill C-19.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
William James Kempling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) could advise us on the business for tomorrow.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, since the debate on this bill seems to be winding down, we plan to continue with it tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time in relation to a question which I posed earlier today to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) with respect to the proposal he put forward, together with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), during the course of the election campaign, on the so-called blended oil price. Many of us and many Canadians have been trying very hard over the last few months, especially during the time after this particular concept was first announced, to get an idea of exactly what this blended oil price was all about. It was very difficult to find out, because almost any Liberal spokesman one approached on this formula had a different idea.
After we had an opportunity of considering what this meant and what exactly it would cost us, we put a question to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on what it would mean, in terms of dollars and cents, to the average Canadian. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and Liberal candidates in the course of the last election campaign went across the country saying that, in any event the Liberal government was going to assure the Canadian people of an oil supply at a lower price than that proposed by the Conservative government in its budget which was brought down by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) last December.
We listened with great interest to find out exactly what the price would be, and again, depending on which Liberal candidate was approached, we got a different figure. It was certainly not going to be over $4 this year and it would not exceed $4.50 for the next three years, because that, of course, would
April 29, 1980

be more than the Conservative government had proposed in its budget.
Then, a few days ago, we heard the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in a speech made in the debate on the Speech from the Throne in which he finally indicated what the figure might be, in which he gave us an inkling, when he indicated finally that, lo and behold, the price for foreign oil, the oil import compensation payments, would be rolled on to the backs of the consumer, thus resulting in a saving of over $1 billion. Still we could not get an answer from the Prime Minister, from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or from the Minister of Finance as to exactly what that meant.
What I am trying to do today is put this into perspective, because if there is going to be a roll over this year, according to the projection of the Minister of Finance, of $1 billion on to the backs of the consumers, I would like to know how this might be accomplished. Will it be in the form of a tax or a levy by which oil import compensation payments would be added to the price of oil for consumers? I specifically asked of the minister whether or not this was in the arsenal that he would take with him to his discussions with the provinces. Of course he refused to answer, because I suspect the answer would be one that he would dare not give at this point in time, and that is that any proposal in order to bring about a blended price will mean to the average consumer a very substantial increase in the cost of oil and petroleum products in this country.
The fact of the matter is that I should title my speech, "Canadians Watch Out". We are being set up by the Liberal government to have a really large increase in oil prices in this country. The simple fact of the matter is that if they are going to roll the prices we pay for international oil or offshore oil on to the backs of the consumers, this will mean that they will have to raise the prices very much more substantially than anything put forward in our budget brought down last December. The fact is that we have no assurance from the minister. He has not denied, in the course of his responses to me, that the increase in price will surpass $4 this year. He has not denied that it will surpass $4.50 over the course of the next three years.
Canadians will now be faced by this new blended oil price policy with the most substantial price increases that they have ever experienced, and far in excess of anything proposed in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West.
1 want an assurance and commitment from the parliamentary secretary tonight that the increase in prices will not exceed an increase of $4 this year and $4.50 over the course of each year during the next three years. 1 want his assurance that there will be some protection with respect to the consumers of home heating fuel and non-transportation products in Canada, that they will not be burdened with this additional cost of the oil import compensation payment.
I want an assurance from the parliamentary secretary that the commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Minis-
Adjournment Debate
ter of Energy, Mines and Resources, on behalf of his party and the government for whom he now answers, will in fact be kept, so that Canadians can say with assurance-and get a commitment from the parliamentary secretary-that they were not deluded, they were not misled, and that in fact they will experience increases to a lesser extent than those set forth in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am grateful that the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has provided me with this opportunity to set forth the government's position on the important question of oil pricing in Canada.
One method of compensating for costly oil imports is to place a levy on all oil used in Canada. Such a procedure would be in line with the principle that the consumer must pay for the energy used. As pledged, however, we shall implement a pricing system that will provide energy to Canadians at a lower price than would have been the case under the proposal of the previous government. Let me elaborate for a moment.
In its ill-fated budget of last December, the Conservative government proposed changes in oil-pricing and in excise taxes on oil. Under those proposals the average annual rate of oil price increase, as measured in Toronto, would have been $4.48 without the additional to international prices specified in the budget. If the budget's link to international price is taken into account, the average annual increase would have risen to $4.98, accepting the December, 1979, projected international prices. Under a low-case projection, that would have been $7.21 per year. Under a high-case projection, it would have been $10.24.
It should be noted that all these figures exclude the effects of the budget's excise tax. Taking into account both the effect of the gas excise tax and the link to the international price, the Conservative government would have increased the average annual oil price at Toronto to as high as $11.07 per barrel in 1984.
In contrast, this government's pricing proposals will ensure that price increases are below those that would have resulted from the proposals of the previous government. Specifically, the 1980 price will remain below the $4 to $4.50 increase. Subsequent increases will continue to remain below what the previous government would have forced upon consumers.
In the near future the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will release a statement outlining various options and explaining the application of the blended price in equitably distributing the cost arising from eastern Canada's dependence on imported oil.
Naturally it would be inappropriate to make any such announcement before discussing this matter fully with provincial governments to obtain their views on this matter of utmost national importance. These discussions will proceed as quickly as possible. I am sure that all members of the House will join

April 29, 1980
Adjournment Debate
in endorsing our approach which avoids hasty pronouncements on oil pricing before the views of provinces have been solicited.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-BOYCOTTING OF MOSCOW OLYMPICS- GOVERNMENT POSITION ON OTHER SPORTS ACTIVITIES WITH SOVIETS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to justify the inconsistency and hypocrisy of his government in respect of the Olympic boycott on the one hand and the government's refusal to ban other artistic and sporting events between the Soviet Union and Canada on the other, specifically the forthcoming Canada Cup hockey series in which the Soviets are scheduled to play. Twice the Prime Minister did not justify his position, but instead reiterated his hypocritical stance by saying:
Our condemnation is of games to be held in Moscow. That is the total aspect of it. We are not condemning sporting events, amateur or professional, held in other fora.
That is unfair, unjust, hypocritical and inconsistent. The Prime Minister condemns the Olympic Games, but that is not the question. The question is, do he and his government condemn the dastardly act of military invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union? Is he condemning that country completely, or is the Prime Minister and his government condemning the Soviet Union partially for that act? If it is full and complete condemnation, then I suggest that all artistic, economic and sporting ties should be broken, whether that means disallowing the Soviet hockey team to participate in the Canada Cup series, or, for that matter, whether it means disallowing the continuation of Soviet-built Lada cars to be sold in Canada, particularly at this time when there are proposed massive lay-offs within the automotive industry in this country.
If the government is partially condemning the Soviet Union for its invasion of Afghanistan, then it is partially condoning the invasion as well. I do not think Canadians accept that fact, as I do not. This is as though you, sir, would not allow one of your daughters to marry a murderer, which would be proper, but then allowed your second daughter to marry the same man. That would not be fair and it would not be consistent. That is precisely the position of this government.
As a former Olympian and world athlete I know that the Soviet Union prides itself in sports events and uses them as the number one propaganda tool. How can the Prime Minister sit there and allow Soviet hockey players and Soviet athletes to come and play games here, while disallowing our athletes to go over there? I would like to hear that explanation. This is a half-position.
There is no leadership by the Prime Minister in this case. We all know he did not want to boycott the Olympic Games in the first place, but public and international pressure forced him to back down. We all know where his personal philosophies lie and who his friends are, and they certainly are not our traditional allies in the free world. It is time the Prime
Minister put his personal philosophies aside in matters of this nature and began to assume the leadership role Canada should have in events involving human rights.
This deals with human rights because there are murderers from the Soviet Union invading countries, whether it be Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and now Afghanistan. We as Canadians, because of this government, are partially condoning those dastardly acts by allowing the Soviet Union to play games, sell their cars, and through their games to make hundreds of thousands of dollars to take back to the Soviet Union.
I am, of course, delighted with the response, the ground swell of support, which has taken place since last Thursday when I made my first statement. This support has come from NHL hockey players, arena managers and owners, athletes, much of the media, the public and other groups. I know that the answer which I will receive tonight will be a farce, as is usually the case. The answer will not be on my specific question; do we condemn the Soviet Union fully or do we condemn it partially? I know that it will be a farce. However, that is not the point. The point is that I would like to urge tonight all Canadians, in the name of human rights and world peace, to get on that bandwagon and demand of this bleeding heart, hypocritical government that it bar all further artistic, economic and sporting ties with the Soviet Union until all Soviet troops have left Afghanistan and it complies with the Helsinki agreement, and the Human Rights agreement which they signed and to which Canada is a signatory. I plead with Canada to get on the bandwagon.
I have pleaded with the Prime Minister in the past in matters of this nature but to no avail. The matter is left to public opinion and world international pressure to get the Prime Minister to back down, as he did with the Olympic boycott, on other ties with the Soviet Union, until it complies with the principles of human rights.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to questions from the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), the Government of Canada is not opposed to Canadians taking part in multilateral sporting events in which the Soviet Union might also participate. However, the Olympics represent an exceptional case in that the games are held in Moscow and we cannot give the government of the Soviet Union an opportunity to have the Russian people believe that the invasion of Afghanistan is leaving the western world indifferent.
However, the government does not intend to intervene in the organization of the Canada Cup this fall or in the organization of any other multilateral competition. But should professional hockey players decide, as some stars of the National League just indicated, to associate themselves with the amateur athletes who are now bearing the cost of a government decision,
April 29, 1980

which could not have been different in the present international context, Canadians in general could only be grateful to them.
It is out of the question for the Government of Canada to out-Elerod Herod, that is for the Government of Canada to go further with respect to the Soviet Union than the United States did when they allowed the Soviet athletes to enter their country for the games that were held at Lake Placid last
Adjournment Debate
February. Mr. Speaker, if one were to follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Halton, one would have to conclude that President Carter himself is following a hypocritical and inconsistent policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No one having risen to speak, 1 declare the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Wednesday, April 30, 1980