1980-04-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
That this government, especially the Minister of Agriculture, show some leadership in this crisis by establishing a loan guarantee program, by providing more money to the Farm Credit Corporation, by taking the required steps to prevent foreclosures on all farm mortgages, and by calling together representatives of the farm community, the Farm Credit Corporation and the private lending institutions for the purpose of establishing a plan of action to meet this crisis.
Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FUNDING OF CONVENTION CENTRES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Inasmuch as the Conservative Government of Canada, after careful and protracted consideration, had announced a clear policy for granting funds to convention centres in the amount of as much as 25 per cent, and inasmuch as a specific offer was made to the Toronto convention centre, and in view of statements made in this House and outside by the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) which have caused much uncertainty on the Toronto project as well as possible loss of convention bookings, such as a 7,000-person convention on which a decision must be made within the next three weeks, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That the former government policy and the specific offer to Toronto be reaffirmed immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), I move:
That this House urges the government to introduce, without delay, an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to end the discrimination therein against persons of single status between the ages of 60 and 65 by providing for the equivalent of the spouse's allowance to be available to all persons between the ages of 60 and 65, regardless of marital status, provided they are out of the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the financial crisis facing farmers today, of high and uncertain interest rates that make long-term planning impossible, I move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a motion, under Standing Order 43, on a question of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas there is a proposal before the National Energy Board and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by Interprovincial Pipe Line to build an oil pipeline along the Mackenzie River corridor from Norman Wells, Northwest Territories, to Zama, Alberta; whereas four

April 30, 1980
years ago the Berger commission examined a similar proposal and recommended against it on social, political and environmental grounds; whereas in 1977, following the Berger commission report, the National Energy Board and the Government of Canada decided against the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline; therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That the Government of Canada continue to respect the recommendations of the Berger commission, and that the proposed Norman Wells pipeline be delayed until aboriginal rights in that area are protected and, in particular, until agreements in principle have been concluded with the native people of the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories respecting their aboriginal claims.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that farmers finance between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of their operating costs with borrowed money, and some farmers have had to drop their low-interest Farm Credit Corporation mortgages for high-interest bank mortgages because the Farm Credit Corporation no longer has sufficient funds, and that in some regions there has been a five-fold increase in farms put up for sale, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this House condemn the government's do-nothing approach to the financial crisis facing farmers today, that the federal government immediately offer more money to the Farm Credit Corporation, and that the Minister of Agriculture immediately introduce the proposal put forth by the previous PC government which would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow supplemental funding from the private marketplace.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL AID FOR HOG PRODUCERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous
consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Because of the dramatic situation in which hog producers have found themselves for the last four months already; because some of them will very soon have to face bankruptcy, if they have not already done so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger)
That this House unanimously invite the Minister of Agriculture to act immediately through either a compensation formula or enough Financial assistance to avoid the worst.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Given the fact that the now famous infamous mini-budget of April 21 imposed additional increases in excise tax and federal sales tax on wines, given the fact that the Canadian wine industry situated in the Niagara Peninsula and in the Okanagan Valley is being unfairly and grievously hindered in its attempts to compete with foreign wine by this measure, and given, further, that these increases will create surpluses of grapes and increase unemployment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That this government reconsider the action taken, and rescind the new taxes imposed on the Canadian wine industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS FOR EMPLOYEES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
April 30, 1980

In view of the fact that employees of the House of Commons are denied the basic right to free collective bargaining which is accorded all other workers in Canada, and in view of the fact that Canada has acceded to the conventions of the 1LO according free collective bargaining to all workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That this House call upon the Minister of Labour to immediately bring forth legislation according full collective bargaining rights to all employees of the House of Commons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Producers in La Crete and Valleyview, Alberta, must haul their grain a maximum of 100 miles. Rail lines in this area were not scheduled for abandonment, and thus do not fall under the previous government's recommendations for an experimental off-line elevator concept. In light of the throne speech's commitment regarding transportation as a national priority, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Minister of Transport give serious and immediate consideration to including the participation of La Crete and Valleyview, Alberta, in the experimental off-line elevator concept as recommended by the previous government for rail line abandonment stemming from the recommendations of the Hall commission.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
So"ie hon. Members: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 1 rise on what 1 know the people of the greater Hamilton area consider to be a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the totally confusing answers given in this House on Monday by the Minister of Transport regarding the future
size and use of Hamilton civic airport, including the possibility that Mount Hope might need to accommodate spillover traffic from the congested Toronto international airport, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That this House requests the Minister of Transport to make a full statement clarifying his department's stand on this matter of very real importance to southern Ontario.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and hope that I will get the unanimous consent of the House.
In view of the devastating effects on Canada's maritime resources that would occur should there be an oil spill off the B.C. coast, and particularly in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and because of the failure of this government as far back as 1971 to encourage the overland route for Prudhoe Bay oil to the United States market, and with hearings now in progress in Olympia, Washington, to hear representations from interested parties on the Northern Tier route approved by the President of the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House require the Canadian government not only to be present at those hearings which are now being covered on an on and off basis from the Canadian consulate in Seattle, but also to make representations expressing the concerns of Canada and Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald W. Munro: -because more tankers mean greater chances of oil spills, and indicating that in any event a pollution compensation bonding scheme-


An hon. Member:: Speech.


Donald W. Munro: -for all vessels entering the Strait might be instituted-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member move his motion very rapidly.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker:
-without delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 30, 1980
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald W. Munro: Who said "No"?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Oral questions. The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise).


Mr. Anguish:: A point of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Questions of privilege are usually heard at the end of the question period. 1 shall be delighted to hear the hon. member then.


Douglas Keith Anguish: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is the same thing.


Douglas Keith Anguish: A point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member please resume his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member will understand that the same ruling applies also to points of order. I shall hear him with pleasure after the question period.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: We won't hear him with pleasure.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Elgin.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Wise: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the subject I raised earlier in my motion under Standing Order 43 regarding high interest rates and its effect on farmers, particularly young farmers.
In the face of declining farm commodity prices-pork, beef and potatoes, to mention a few-and in view of the statement of the Minister of Finance that no new programs will be put into motion without increased government revenues, does this mean that no new programs and no new help, either directly to the producers or in co-operation with the provinces, will be given to help farmers cope with the very serious problem of high interest rates at this time of year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we have met with all the provincial ministers of agriculture: my counterparts and myself finished those meetings on the weekend. The suggestions we received from some of them were encouraging, but none of them are rushing ahead with any kind of program other than those we already have. I am sure the hon. member knows, from his past experience, that many provinces have programs of low interest rates for farm start programs, such as that in Saskatchewan at 8 per cent and that in Nova Scotia which is a low interest program.
As the hon. member is well aware, we initiated programs to provide interest-free loans to farmers. For instance, soybean producers have been provided $15 million in interest-free money from last fall, and it will run until next July. Apple growers have received the same kind of program; rutabaga growers have received the same kind of assistance, and many other producers have as well.
The hon. member mentioned programs for beef producers, pork producers, etc. I met with the Canadian Bankers' Association last night. They told me that there seems to be no lessening of borrowing by these people. Bankruptcies are not what some people are stating; they are not above normal. I have been in constant touch with the minister of agriculture of the province of Ontario, and he has not come forward with any programs similar to what other provinces have for their producers.


John Wise: Madam Speaker, having known the minister for the last seven years, I interpret that answer as being "No".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: During the campaign, the minister made a very clear commitment to give additional funding to the Farm Credit Corporation. Does he intend to keep that commitment, or does he intend to break that commitment? Also, during the campaign he gave a clear commitment to grant additional money for agricultural research. Is that commitment going to be kept, or is it going to be broken?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the former minister of agriculture realizes, I am sure, that the commitment to research is not being lessened. There are this year 59 extra man-years for research and several more million dollars. The hon. member also knows full well that when I say we are going to do something, we generally do it unless there are certain circumstances beyond my control. But we are just putting together all the recommendations of provincial ministers of agriculture that have been made to me in the last three weeks for those kinds of programs.
1 have asked the farm organizations, also, to tell me how many farmers are in a state of bankruptcy, are not going to plant, etc. A week ago last Tuesday I made that request of the National Farmers' Union. I made the same request of the executive of the Federation of Agriculture, and I have not yet received one reply.
April 30, 1980


John Wise: Madam Speaker, I suggest to the minister that about 10 per cent, or 25,000, farmers are in very serious difficulty. I think it is a foregone conclusion that there will be some help for the home owners of this country, and I certainly support that. I think it is a foregone conclusion that the minister's position is in support of aid for Chrysler.
When can we expect the Minister of Agriculture to show some tangible evidence of his concern for a sector of the population for whom he, as Minister of Agriculture, has direct responsibility?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, perhaps the former minister in his short term of office did not have the opportunity to do the great things he is suggesting that I do at the present time. We did some of those things with Chrysler, and some small business people and others would like to have them. We are working on this because we represent all people. We know that if Chrysler's workers do not have money, they cannot buy food, and so on. So we work very closely together.
But 1 can say that farm credit, at 13 per cent interest today, is a very envied interest rate. That is being subsidized by the government at the present time because that rate is less than the government is paying.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL AID FOR HOG PRODUCERS
Roch La Salle: I should like to put a supplementary, Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture. According to him the financial condition of farmers would seem to be fine. Now, could the minister tell us about the condition of a very special group, the hog producers? According to our information, during the past four months they have been incurring a deficit of millions of dollars per week. Is the minister aware of the situation? If so, does he intend to announce a special program to help hog producers?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member also knows that hogs are a named commodity under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. That fiscal year just finished, at the end of March, and we will be announcing, I hope in the very near future, a stabilization program for hog producers. But to be fair, they geared their production to an unlimited market, and overproduced. They are suffering the consequences of not managing the supply of pork needed for the market; that is why they are now in dire need of assistance. They have said in the past, "Mr. Minister, keep your cotton pickin' fingers off our industry." Now they are saying, "Mr. Minister, please save our industry." If they had managed things a little better, they would not be in the economic position they are right now.


Mr. Nielsen:: This sounds like hogwash.
Oral Questions


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker. I accept the comments which the minister has just made on production control. In that context, is the minister trying to convince producers to join a national board? In any event, considering the present situation of hog producers, and I think he finds the situation dramatic, before the creation of a national board could the minister try to devise a formula for financial assistance now essential for the survival of hog producers?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we know that hundreds of hog producers, especially young people, who entered the production field in the last year or two are now in the greatest financial difficulty. Regarding having a better kind of marketing system, there seems to be that kind of desire by many of them. The same is true of the potato industry, which the former questioner mentioned. It is in a state of chaos. However, the four provinces have agreed to go ahead with it- Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Ontario. 1 firmly believe that the Quebec producers want to go ahead with it, but I believe Mr. Garon does not want to because it would appear he was favouring the federal system so that they could market together; therefore, he does not want to go ahead with that kind of program at this time.
I think the same thing applies to a hog marketing board, because we know Mr. Garon wants that kind of thing for his provincial producers, but at the same time he is saying the hog industry is in fairly healthy condition. That is not what the producers are telling me. In meetings I held with Quebec producers last week-two different groups-they both pointed out the dire need of assistance that they have mainly because of overproduction and a very poor market for their product.


GASOLINE-PROPOSED PRICE INCREASE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the important subject of gasoline prices, in a speech in Toronto on February 12, the Prime Minister said, and I quote from his text:
The Liberal price hike will be less than half what the Tories plan to inflict on you.
In the same text he said:
For the consumer that means a gasoline price increase which will not rise by 32 cents a gallon this year as it would with a Clark government.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, does his government today stand by that commitment which he made less than a week before the election?
Right Hon P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Madam Speaker, I would want to re-do the mathematics of it, but in my memory-

April 30, 1980
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Trudeau:: I concede to the hon. member for Northumberland that that was a bad start, Madam Speaker. My recollection of the calculation I made to reach this statement about "less than half' was that the Tory budget proposed an increase of $4 for the year 1980-a $4 increase per barrel in the price of petroleum at the wellhead-and that the 18-cent a gallon excise tax was the equivalent of $5, I believe.


An hon. Member:: Six.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Closer to $6 I am told, so if you add half-


An hon. Member:: Half?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, half. If you add five and four, you arrive at nine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the New Democratic Party can now tell me what is half of nine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will tell him, Madam Speaker. It is 4'/2. Our price, I made quite clear-and that has been the position of this party all along-would be less than $4. Therefore, it is less than half of nine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has just proved that he can do grade one arithmetic-but that does not take us very far. On a serious commitment, he said the price rise will be less than 32 cents per gallon. That is what the Prime Minister promised. Now he is clearly abandoning that commitment.
On the second question, also in terms of an election promise, the Prime Minister said many times in the campaign that if elected there would be no increase in the excise tax on gasoline. Specifically, on January 3 in this city, he said and I quote:
We will not raise the gas tax and will implement fairer ways to deal with increased energy costs.
Outside the House yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
The Liberals have never said there will be no increase in the excise tax.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: He indicated, indeed, that the government is now considering an excise tax increase. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether, at least, he is going to keep his commitment on excise tax?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the first part of the question, I would remind the hon. member that his question was that 1 had said "less than half'. Am I departing from that? I have just demonstrated to him that my "less than half' was a commitment we have kept and are intending to keep.
I do not know what the exact price will be yet, but it is not going to be $9; it will be less than half of $9. So I am repeating that to him. As to what the price will be in the future, it will depend, of course, on the negotiations conducted by the minister with the various-


Some hon. Members:: Excise tax.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the excise tax, it was pointed out to me during the campaign by several interviewers that we already had an excise tax. I said, "Yes, of course we have an excise tax; we brought it in to pay the transfer payments to the five eastern provinces". So we are not against an excise tax, and I made this quite clear during the campaign. What we are against is the 18-cent excise tax that this budget was bringing in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is factually wrong on both counts. I quoted where he said there would be no increase in the excise tax.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And that is what the Speech from the Throne said.


John Edward Broadbent: Yet the minister, outside the House yesterday, said they are considering an increase in the excise tax.


Mr. Lalonde:: Not this year.


John Edward Broadbent: In reply to the first question the Prime Minister was referring to a price per gallon increase. He said it would be less than 32 cents per gallon-which he has just taken back.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


John Edward Broadbent: It is going to be less then 32 cents a gallon? All right. The last question I have for the Prime Minister is this: During the campaign he complained about the oil companies getting too much of the revenue coming in for our oil and gas resources. Considering that the profit figures released on the weekend show an average increase for the Big Six of 102 per cent in the first quarter, I should like to ask whether he will at least live up to that commitment to do something about excessive profits in the oil industry and force these companies to treat the consumer in Canada with a little more respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again, on the first part of the hon. member's question, I made a commitment during the campaign which is repeated in the Speech from the Throne: "My ministers do not intend to impose an 18-cent increase in the excise tax on transportation fuels."
April 30, 1980


Some hon. Members:: This year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what we said during the campaign, and that is what we said in the Speech from the Throne; and that is what will happen in this Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Do 1 hear 17 cents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I haven't changed what I said on the 32 cents, either, because if the hon. member calculated it he would find that an increase of $9 a barrel, when translated into a gallon of gasoline, is 32 cents. That is why, when 1 made a demonstration for $9, half of which is $4.50, it was a demonstration which was equally good for the 32 cents. Thirty-two cents is composed of 18 cents, being the excise tax, and 16 cents, being the increase at the wellhead.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Where is your arithmetic?


Madam Speaker:: Order please.


An hon. Member:: It is 34.


EXCISE TAX ON FUELS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: The
Minister of Energy has been shouting from his seat that the undertaking of the Liberal party during the election campaign not to increase the excise tax was an undertaking which would apply to this year only.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that when he made his firm commitment to the people of Canada during the election campaign, he really intended to say there would not be an excise tax increase in 1980 but there would be one later on? Did he simply forget to tell the people that he intended to sock an excise tax increase to Canadians after the calendar year 1980?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not
forget to tell the people, as the Leader of the Opposition puts it. The decision was that we would not reintroduce the Tory budget with the 18-cent excise tax, and that is the commitment which the Speech from the Throne will deliver.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it the intention of the government-I pose this question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy-to propose an increase in the excise tax next year or in subsequent years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, that has never been our intention. What we will do next year or the year after will depend on many things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since it depends on many things we cannot formulate any intention in that regard. It will depend on the price we negotiate with the producing provinces; it will depend
Oral Questions
on the budget which in that year the Minister of Finance wants to bring down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My last question, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Energy. Why was he shouting across the floor of the House, trying to prompt his leader that the commitment which was given applied only to this year? Why did he shout across the floor of the House "Not this year"?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my leader does not need any prompting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: It seems that members on the other side still want to prompt their leader further, Madam Speaker. As to the question raised by the right hon. member, I would remind him that during the last campaign the Prime Minister was asked repeatedly by the press and other people about the principle of the excise tax, and he indicated repeatedly that we would not reintroduce the odious 18-cent excise tax which the Conservatives had put in their budget. That was a clear statement of commitment. Moreover, questions were specifically put to him at the time about the principle of an excise tax. He indicated that we had introduced a 7-cent excise tax, so the principle of an excise tax is not one which this government had refused.
I see the Leader of the New Democratic Party losing his cool again. I suggest he wait for the answer. He will have his opportunity. The Prime Minister, during the last election campaign, stated that as far as the future was concerned this was a matter which would have to be looked into at that time. But the principle of an excise tax was already in the books and it was a matter which would be decided eventually in the future.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because few provinces are putting in top loading programs in the livestock industry, and in order that we may show the leadership he speaks at great length about, would the hon. gentleman call together all the ministers of agriculture and discuss with them the provincial programs and give some federal direction in this area?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member did not want to create the impression that all provincial ministers of agriculture are in favour of top loading. Some of them are definitely against it. I am sure he is aware of my feelings against it. I do not believe in it because it creates inequity in the agricultural industry for

April 30, 1980
Oral Questions
producers who are producing for the domestic market as well as those producing for the international market.
1 am sure the hon. member realizes that even in his own province interest rates are subsidized by the Alberta government through some loan programs which offer a fixed rate of interest of 9 per cent. For instance, we have nothing like that for the producers in the province of Ontario, and that creates inequity also. I hope the hon. member has made that kind of representation to his provincial minister of agriculture in Alberta. Some provinces have greater resources to do these kinds of things than other provinces. I am sure the hon. member realizes that his province probably has the greatest resources, but his minister does not believe in that form of top loading that he talks about.
We have a deputy ministers' meeting being held first, I believe next week or the following week, to discuss some of these very things. Under no stabilization program in which 1 am involved will there be payments to those producers who are already being fully subsidized in some form or another by their own provincial governments.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, I believe, then, that the minister is not prepared to call together the ministers of agriculture from all the provinces. Would he, then, make an interim stabilization payment under the stabilization plan in order to help livestock producers who are in trouble; or would he discuss with the provinces which are top loading, the elimination of feed freight assistance so that there might be some justice in this area?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the province which gets the most feed freight assistance is British Columbia. The next is one of the maritime provinces. I am not suggesting the hon. member is insinuating that we should disband the feed freight assistance in those provinces, but feed freight assistance is being phased out in practically all of Ontario and all of western Quebec.
However, when the hon. member says I have not suggested to the provincial ministers that we would meet, and should meet, that is not so, because the deputy ministers will be meeting first. If they come to the conclusion that we can forge ahead with some program, we will be calling a meeting immediately after that. But I am sure that the hon. member is aware, for instance, that the minister from Alberta is in favour of an orderly federal marketing system.
The minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan wants me to impose a national marketing system on hog and beef producers. I do not know if the hon. member is suggesting that. The minister of agriculture of Manitoba is suggesting that he should give Ottawa all of his stabilization programs and we should absorb them federally. That kind of suggestion is what we are getting and we are trying to put them together to make a federal program that is workable. They recognize that their provincial programs are just not workable for a federal production entity called agriculture.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For several weeks now the minister has had Mr. Justice Berger's report on Indian and Inuit health consultation.
Considering the report's findings on the deplorable state of Indian health and the need for greater Indian control over their health care delivery system, can the minister inform the House whether she will be implementing the four recommendations of the report, and what timetable we can expect?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I met with the National Indian Brotherhood at the beginning of April. I am sorry, but 1 do not remember the exact date. The hon. member seems to have learned about the Berger report only today. 1 informed the National Indian Brotherhood at that time that I agree in principle with all the recommendations, and we have started a follow-up process and, of course, a consultation process to implement each of the recommendations; in particular, the one which would lead to a national conference on Indian health, with the Indian community in July of this year.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, this morning, at the first nations constitutional conference, the minister heard complaints from Indian people that members of the medical service branch in her department lack understanding of the role of band councils and of other aspects of Indian life.
Would the minister undertake to provide a program to acquaint her staff with the cultural, social and economic background of the Indian people and of the varied structures of Indian government?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the fact is that one participant this morning mentioned to me that the concept of band councils might not be judged at its proper value by some of my staff in some parts of Canada.
The hon. member may not be aware that within the medical services branch there are meetings of all the staff from all over Canada at different times of the year. The last such meeting was in Cornwall. 1 attended part of it, again earlier in April. The idea, of course, is always to better the understanding and to bridge the communities as best we can, and that starts with a knowledge of the organizational structures of the Indian communities.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the very great concern expressed by uranium miners working under federal

April 30, 1980

jurisdiction that they have less health and safety protection than those working under provincial jurisdiction, when does the minister plan to take action to implement the provisions of Ontario's Bill 70 as a regulation to federal health and safety legislation, as was done for Saskatchewan uranium miners?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, in answering this question-which is the first question related to my labour portfolio-I want to take advantage of the occasion to pay tribute to my predecessor, who is not in the House this afternoon but who is slated in two or three months to leave the House, the hon. member for Hamilton West. 1 would like pay tribute to the work he did during his time in the Department of Labour. In dealing with these problems I am able to benefit from his work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: The problem the hon. member speaks about arises from the fact that in 1978 it was determined by the Department of Justice that part IV of the Canada Labour Code applies to conventional mine safety in uranium mines. Prior to that time we depended upon provincial legislation in relation to mine safety.
When that discovery, or finding, was made, it was necessary for the federal government either to develop regulations and laws in relation to conventional mine safety in uranium mines or adopt, by reference, the provincial laws. What was done is that by reference the federal government at that time adopted the rules of the province of Saskatchewan and those of the province of Ontario, and those are the ones that are in effect at the present time. However, subsequently-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is an involved question, but 1 will try to make my answer very short.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister try to give us an answer that is not too involved?


Charles Joseph Clark: Read every second line.


Gerald Augustine Regan: What it amounts to is that the province of Ontario subsequently changed its law after the referencing had occurred, and during the past few months, at the request of the United Steelworkers' Union, the department has been working with them in the developing of a new set of federal regulations. Our target for them to be in effect is late May, and we are hoping to keep to that target.


PROTECTION OF LOWER-INCOME GROUPS FROM SEVERE PRICE INCREASES
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Oral Questions
Resources. The minister has indicated that negotiations for a significant increase in oil prices are under way. To offset the impact of such increases, the previous government proposed a system of grants and tax credits which would have been especially beneficial in the Atlantic provinces.
What plans does the minister have to shelter Canadians in Atlantic Canada and in the lower and middle-income groups from the severity of such increases?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member was present in the House at the beginning of the question period, but the Prime Minister indicated that the increase for this year, for instance, will be less than half that foreseen by the Tory budget of last December.
As far as the other points raised by the hon. member are concerned, I am beginning discussions with my provincial colleagues, starting this week. 1 will be meeting with my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces in the course of the next few days.
1 will have an opportunity to exchange with them various views about the future of oil pricing in this country and what measures should be taken. I will be very happy to inform the hon. member about developments later on.


J. Robert Howie: I thank the minister very much for his answer, whatever it was, and 1 ask him what plans he has to breathe life into renewable energy research and development in Atlantic Canada, to expedite Fundy tidal development and the Maritime Energy Corporation by investing financially in renewable energy projects in the Atlantic provinces where high energy costs aggravate the problems of regional disparity.


Marc Lalonde: No doubt this is something that will be discussed with my colleagues in the next few days. However, the hon. member knows, I believe, that additional funding has been provided for those projects over the last few years.
In addition, one of the serious problems, I regret to say, has been the inability of the maritime provinces, in some cases, to agree among themselves on how they wanted to proceed with some of the projects. As the hon. member knows, there were some agreements and there were some disagreements. I would hope the three maritime provinces, in particular, will be able to work very closely together and to co-operate fully with regard to these projects, because they are indeed very important for the future of energy in the maritimes.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the minister is aware and pleased at the response of Canada's

April 30, 1980
Oral Questions
cattle industry to his reference in the throne speech that a meat import act will be introduced to protect both consumers and producers.
Can the minister inform the House and our Canadian cattle industry whether his intended meat import act contains essentially the same types of provisions as the beef import proposals we had drafted in the Thirty-first Parliament?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the one which was drafted in the Thirty-first Parliament was practically the same as the one drafted in the Thirtieth Parliament but was never presented to Parliament. 1 can say that it will be essentially the same. There may be a few modifications which 1 think will make it even better, because I am sure the hon. member felt that his party made a few modifications in the Thirty-first Parliament which made the proposals better, as we did in the Thirtieth Parliament.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: As the minister himself admitted, of course, his proposals never got to the floor of the House of Commons. I should like to ask the minister whether he can indicate what other meat commodities, if any, he is proposing to include in his meat import act, and when can we expect this very important legislation?


Eugene Whelan: At the present time, Madam Speaker, we have to look at all the rules of GATT and we have to abide by them with our trading partners. That may have some effect on whether we can add any other products to the act. But 1 would say we should be able to bring the legislation to Parliament soon.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. My question concerns a speech given by him in Calgary yesterday, in which he outlined a novel vision of a new broadcasting system for Canada, the key feature of which is that private broadcasters will be free to concentrate on the lucrative business of airing more cheap U.S. programs dumped into Canada, while the public sector will concentrate on the very expensive business of producing and airing Canadian programs. The reaction to the statement from one private broadcaster, at least, was the following:
It would be in my interest if he did say that... but 1 don't believe that's what he meant.
In view of this, I wonder if the minister would clarify his statement for the benefit of the delighted private broadcasters and the horrified Canadian public.


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I think the best suggestion I can make to the hon. member is to take the time and trouble to read my speech, instead of relying on press reports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Back in office! I should like to tell the minister that I took the time-and it was a great deal of trouble-to read the minister's remarks. In his paper he hinted not only to what 1 alluded earlier but to the abandonment of the single system, which is a policy retreat of mammoth proportions.
I wonder if I could ask, as a supplementary, what the minister's plans are, or if he has any, for improving and stimulating our creative production industry. Also, when does he intend to let the rest of the country in on these plans, because apparently it is the position right now that Canadian programs are going to be reduced, not enhanced?


Francis Fox: I think the last part of the hon. member's statement does not take into account the speech 1 made in Calgary yesterday. The thrust of the speech was that, while people in general have spoken about a single system in Canada, with the technological development one could raise the question as to whether this is still reality, or fiction, at a time when we have satellites in the sky broadcasting directly to people in their homes. It is my intention to promote Canadian content in television.


An hon. Member:: How?


Francis Fox: I think a number of Canadian cultural agencies have been set up and funded over the years by the government which are producing high-quality Canadian content which has not been used sufficiently by public or private broadcasters in this country.
I think in particular of such organizations as the National Film Board, widely acclaimed across the world, which does now produce a number of programs of high quality which I would personally like to see used to a far greater extent on both the public and the private broadcasting systems in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Minister of Finance in his mini-budget adopted holus-bolus the provisions of the Crosbie budget relating to the excise tax on tobacco and alcohol, but failed to maintain the traditional difference between distilled spirits and wines, and since this is undoubtedly a regressive tax on wines, resulting in a surplus of grapes, a reduction in sales and more unemployment, will the minister- as did the former minister of finance, following representations made to him by the grape and wine industry-agree to implement a more equitable tax on the wine industry?
April 30, 1980


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear an hon. member on the other side say that anything in the budget presented by the former minister of finance was regressive and suggest that we should adopt anything that is regressive.
All 1 can say is that 1 am sure the hon. member is aware of the representations made by the grape growers and the wine industry. Those representations are being reviewed at present.


FINANCE
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, my question this time is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that his budget distorts the traditional difference in the tax relationship between distilled spirits and wines, and results in an average percentage increase of 6 per cent on spirits, 29 per cent on beer and 185 per cent on Canadian wines, how does the minister justify this unconscionable increase in tax on Canadian wines?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 join the Minister of Agriculture in deploring such strong language as the hon. member directed against the former minister of finance. I gather he is asking his question today because the former minister is not in his place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 would remind the hon. member that one purpose of the proposal was to remove what was regarded as a real distortion between the impact of taxes upon spirits and wines. If the hon. member would examine the alcoholic content of these various beverages, he would understand that we have moved to a more equitable, relative treatment of these beverages. Nonetheless, other hon. members-including the hon. member for Lincoln-have been making vigorous representations in the interest of wine growers. 1 have undertaken to look again at these proposals to see whether the complaints are justified and, if so, whether any action is then justified.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Of course 1 do not have to remind the Minister of Agriculture of the serious condition of the potato industry in eastern Canada. However, in the medium term, could the
Oral Questions
minister advise the House whether he has obtained a consensus from his colleages the provincial ministers of agriculture with a view to setting up a potato marketing board in eastern Canada and, in the short term, does the minister intend to announce soon an assistance program for the industry which this year is experiencing the lowest prices in history?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, as 1 said earlier today in this House, the eastern regions of Canada-Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces-have held provincial ministers' meetings. New Brunswick has taken some action.
The minister of agriculture for New Brunswick has imposed a marketing agency upon the producers there in respect of potatoes. I have the same assurance from the minister of agriculture for Prince Edward Island, that they hope to do the same thing. Representatives of the province of Ontario have said yes, they are willing to go along with the National Farm Products Marketing Council holding hearings to decide what they should do. The producers in Quebec-at least, the ones I have heard from-have said yes, they want that. The members of Parliament from Quebec who have made representations to me have said that also.
1 would repeat, again, as a result of a meeting with the minister of agriculture for Quebec in his office in Quebec City I got the feeling that he wanted to go along with this program also. 1 got the impression that he did not want to make that decision now because he might be looked upon as favouring the federal system, and he did not want to be in that position at this time.
 * *


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Has the minister had time to consider the once-in-a-lifetime exemption for qualifying farmers with regard to capital gains taxes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, I did consider that and, as the hon. member knows, 1 propose to release a discussion paper covering the whole question of capital gains, and within that general understanding it will be possible for the hon. member and for me to take a more comprehensive look at such particular concerns as the one he has expressed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, has the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance received representations from the Minister of Agriculture in line with his election promise to change the valuation day from December 31, 1971, to December 31,1974; and, if so, is this going to be done?

April30, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Domm


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the history of that particular proposal because, as the hon. member may recall, I was chairman of the platform committee for this party prior to the last election. 1 am aware of the nature of the discussions that took place during the campaign and I will have this before me, obviously, if and when I make any further tax changes.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I feel involves a gross abuse in this House and an insult to every member here. Earlier in the week I asked a question of the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) dealing with the relocation of the Parks Canada regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough. At that time I asked the minister two questions: Was the move proceeding as planned; and why did he require more than the 14 days he had assured various people it would take for him to make an announcement?
The minister responded, as reported in Hansard for April 28 at page 453, that he had not given the assurance of 14 days. He also responded by saying that he had made a decision in his own mind and was reviewing it with his colleagues.
My question of privilege is this. Rather than honouring the responsibilities of a minister of the Crown in answering members of Parliament who ask questions on behalf of their constituents, the minister responsible for the move of Parks Canada's regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough chose to discuss it with his colleagues, who in turn gave information to the media the day after, rather than to this House. The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley) advised the media the day after that he and the minister thought the same. We all know how the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas feels.
My question of privilege is this, Madam Speaker. If ministers of the Government of Canada opposite refuse to answer questions in this House, asked responsibly, by hon. members in the interests of their constituents, trying to find out what are the problems that create all this indecision, then 1 maintain that Parliament will lose its credibility with the people of Canada and ministers opposite deserve to be reprimanded.
I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to intercede in this matter. My reasons in support of my position can be found in statements by the minister, first of all in March to the acting mayor of the city of Peterborough, the warden of the 18 municipalities of Peterborough county, that he would make that decision prior to the opening of Parliament, and that he would then announce his intention.
Following that, as reported in the Peterborough Examiner of April 12:
The minister promised the employees he would make a decision in a week or ten days-
He gave those employees of Parks Canada the assurance of a decision in that time frame.
In addition, as reported in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder of April 16 we find the report that Harley Starks, vice president of the local of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said that the minister had also promised them that if the issue does go to cabinet he will announce a decision before Parliament sits.
The minister has said there were two deadlines. First he mentioned 14 days before Parliament reconvened. Let me refer to The Globe and Mail of April 25, where it is reported:
Employees say that Mr. Roberts, at a meeting on March 12, promised a decision in two weeks or before the opening of Parliament at the latest. Parliament opened on April 14.
My question of privilege is further substantiated in this morning's paper.
I directed the question to the minister on Monday of this week. The minister said he had made up his mind that he would not respond to a member of Parliament. On what authority does a minister of the Crown take it upon himself to circumvent parliamentary procedure? The purpose of the question period is for members of Parliament to learn what are the programs intended by the ministerial people on the other side of the House. The minister has said he has made up his mind that he will not tell the member of Parliament for Peterborough, but he will tell his colleagues; and then his colleague the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas, when interviewed by a reporter of a local paper here, advised that the minister does support that hon. member. We all know what that hon. member's feelings are.
As a result of that interview we find an article in today's paper under the heading "Parks Canada move vetoed-", This reminds me of the Eldorado affair which was also vetoed. It is vetoed regardless of cost and without accountability by government. It is done without any answers to members in the opposition.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that it is our job as members of the opposition to represent our constituents. We cannot represent our constituents when we have ministers on the other side of the House who completely disregard the parliamentary process.
1 appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to intercede on my behalf, on behalf of every member of the opposition, and on behalf of every backbencher on the government side of the House, to hold these ministers responsible, and to require them to account for their actions in running the Government of Canada. This is what Parliament is all about. As a recent member of this House 1 am appalled by this situation, and I am sure the Speaker of this House will intercede on my behalf, making these ministers accountable to members of the opposition in the proper fashion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
April 30, 1980



Elon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment): Madam Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I believe that the hon. member's point is unfounded. I can understand why he would wish to stand up and present his point so vociferously, because it is in the interest of his constituents. I am sure that that is an obligation to the hon. member and that he finds it an attractive position to take.
Nevertheless, to the best of my belief, the answers which 1 have given to the hon. member in the House are accurate answers to the questions which he raised. Whenever I have met with the various people concerned, I have indicated that I did wish to take a decision very quickly and that I hoped to do so within ten days or two weeks. Always I emphasized that 1 could not give an absolute guarantee on the time. I was also careful to point out that I would take my decision quickly, but that that decision might very well necessitate consultation with my colleagues.
It is true that 1 took my decision rather quickly, and that the matter is one on which I am in consultation with my colleagues at the present time. There are various options which 1 have put forward for consideration and discussion, and the rumours and newspaper headlines to which the hon. member has referred are unfounded. The decision has not yet been finally taken.
The hon. member may prefer to believe the rumours which he reads in the newspapers, and I cannot prevent him from doing so, but 1 will tell hint honestly that the final decision to which he has referred has not yet been taken. As I have told the hon. member, consultation is in process and I believe that the decision will be taken in a very few days.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, 1 have listened with considerable interest to the comments of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and to the thoroughly inadequate reply of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). As the minister well knows, the former Liberal government had made extensive studies of the appropriateness of the move of Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough and, in fact, was only waiting for the conclusion of the 1979 election to announce their decision.
When the government of which 1 was a member took power, I was minister of the environment and I accepted, after careful consideration, the information which was available to the former Liberal government. On the basis of that information given to me by my officials, I made a decision last summer that the move should proceed. That decision was clear, unequivocal and was made because we could not-nor was it right-allow the public servants in the department and the people of both Cornwall and Peterborough to go on not knowing the intentions of the government.
To listen to the minister, one would think that no decision had ever been made. He is now dithering around for 14 days, then ten days and then another 14 days and then going to his colleagues before making up his mind about something on which there was a clear decision made by a government of 80082-37
Privilege-Mr. Anguish
Canada, and it was made last summer. The conduct of the minister is absolutely disgraceful, because what the minister is doing is going back on a decision which was made many months ago on the basis of the information, the accounting and the propriety of such a move, all of which was instituted by the former Liberal government prior to the election of 1979.
The hon. member for Peterborough has brought this matter to you, Madam Speaker, as a question of privilege, which it is most clearly. If members in this House cannot receive a better answer from a minister than the ones which we have just had to listen to, then there is no use having question period. This minister is still misleading the House because it is quite clear that the hon.* member from Cornwall has gone public and stated that in his view-and it is well known-Parks Canada should not move, and his view is the same now as that of the minister's.
Without actually giving their decision in the House and coming clean with the media, this government, in effect, has in a circuitous way not only made a decision but communicated that decision. They have completely circumvented the right of the hon. member for Peterborough to raise that matter in this House on behalf of his constituents and receive an honest answer from a government which, in this case, is not only acting dishonestly, but shabbily.


Mr. Roberts:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has not brought up a new matter, therefore I will not allow the hon. minister to reply.
I have listened to the arguments presented very carefully, and I do not really see a question of privilege in the question raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) nor in the argument raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. It is very much a matter of one member not being satisfied with the answer which he received during the question period. Beauchesne very clearly states that such a situation does not constitute a question of privilege.
Therefore, I would assume that both members are satisfied with the arguments brought forward by the minister. If not, there is ample occasion to ask other questions and to go into debate at some other time.


MR. ANGUISH-EJECTION OF GUESTS FROM MEMBERS' GALLERY
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A little more than an hour ago some guests of mine who had been given signed passes by myself were ejected from the members' gallery.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I am already listening to one question of privilege, and I cannot entertain a second one at the moment. I

April 30, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Roberts
will entertain the second privilege later on, but not at the moment.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, these guests of mine who were ejected from the gallery are all treaty Indians. They came from the reserves of Dillon, Ministikwan, Joseph Bighead, Waterhen Lake, LaLoche, Fond du Lac, Flying Dust, Onion Lake, Thunderchild, Salteaux Reserve, Moosomin Reserve, Mudie Lake Reserve, Patuanak or the English River Band and Loon Lake. People from these bands were affected or will be affected within the next couple of days. The reason they were ejected from the gallery is because they were not wearing ties.
1 submit that ties are not-


Madam Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. The matter of the galleries in this Eiouse is one of my responsibilities. The hon. member may come to my chambers and discuss any grievance he has concerning the matter.
I would like to say, though, that yesterday when these people asked to be admitted to my gallery, 1 had already begun the parade to come into the House of Commons and, therefore, 1 was not consulted on the matter, and someone applied the rule very strictly and decided that they could not admit these people to that particular gallery because they were not wearing ties. We do admit to the gallery people of other nationalities who do not wear ties. Had I been aware of the matter when it occurred, 1 would have allowed these people to come into my gallery. I do apologize profusely for what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I understand that these people were ejected from your gallery. 1 think that it should also be the decision of this House that an apology be extended to these people.


Jean-Jacques Blais: She just did.


Douglas Keith Anguish: If these people are still in the gallery, they should be allowed to come in to the members' gallery now.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please come to my chambers later on to discuss this matter.


MR. ROBERTS-REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF LANGUAGE USED BY HON. MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER SOUTH
John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Waddell:: A point of order. Madam Speaker.


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 regret any explanation received-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. 1 shall now recognize the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the
Environment (Mr. Roberts) providing he is not speaking on the question of privilege on which 1 have just ruled.


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Madam Speaker, 1 believe I am not. I am referring not to the question of privilege which was raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), but I believe that in his comments the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) did say that I had misled the House; and I believe he said-although I would have to check-that my comments were dishonest and shabby, which would, 1 think, constitute a question of privilege for me. It is on that point that 1 rise. 1 believe that is unparliamentary language which should be withdrawn.
The hon. member said that he had taken a decision in this matter and that 1 was pretending to take a new stance. 1 have never denied the decision was taken. I have made it clear to the House and I have made it clear outside the House that the previous decision was under review, so my comments in the House on that point have not been misleading.
The hon. member also commented on the length of time taken for me to review this matter. I think the record will bear out my following statement, and that is that it took him longer to take that decision when the matter was brought to his attention than it has taken for me to deal with it up to this point.
I think the language the hon. member used is unparliamentary and 1 would wish to see it withdrawn.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have not heard anything in the intervention made by the hon. member that I felt was unparliamentary. However, since the minister has raised the matter, I shall check Hansard and act accordingly.


MR. WADDELL-PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS-IMPROVED FACILITIES FOR HANDICAPPED
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have another question of privilege but before I raise it I may say, with great respect, that Your Honour referred to other people getting into the gallery without ties as people of other nationalities. May 1 remind Your Honour that these people . are Canadians, native Canadians, important Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and we should not let that go on the record.
1 might say with respect to that point, Madam Speaker, that I too had a delegation of high school students from Kelowna. The girls were allowed in the gallery because they do not wear ties, whereas the boys had to go into the ladies' gallery because they did not have ties. I shall not pursue the matter, but perhaps we can pursue it privately and clean up our gallery act in the House of Commons to be in tune with the modern world.
1 rise now on a question of privilege that is much more pleasant, Madam Speaker. On November 26, 1979, 1 moved in
April 30, 1980

the House, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), as follows:
That this House notes the difficulties handicapped people face inside the Parliament buildings and urges the appropriate authorities to investigate these facilities with a view to suggestion for correction.
The motion was passed by this House. In my prelude to the motion I said, as reported at page 1676 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, today I invited to the House of Commons a group of handicapped people from British Columbia. They came in their wheelchairs and were at first unable to get into the building. Eventually they got in through a side door which had to be unlocked. For a while they were unable to enter the parliamentary dining room: we had to carry them down the stairs.
Finally, not all of them were able to get into the House of Commons, though there were only about seven or eight of them in wheelchairs. The marble staircases pose a danger when one has to carry people in, and the situation is really shocking.
Then 1 put the motion. I now have in my possession a report from Mr. R. A. Hill, property manager for Public Works Canada dated December 7, 1979, concerning facilities for the handicapped in the parliamentary complex. I am very pleased to have this report and to tell the House that many things that the House objected to have been remedied, and specifically in four respects.
By May 31, 1980, it will be possible for a new or at least a renovated entrance to be built to the main building under the Peace Tower; the entrance to the restaurant is going to be changed in the summer recess of 1980; there is already a new entrance to the West Block which was completed last December. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, the night the House fell, 1 too fell over that entrance so I realize that the Thirty-first Parliament had achieved something. Finally, there is a procedure under way to change the entrance to the House of Commons.
I raise this as a question of privilege because I wanted to bring to Your Honour's attention and to that of the House the excellent work done by the people responsible in response to the resolution of this House. 1 know, Madam Speaker, that you are particularly aware of and interested in the progress of this matter, and although I cannot officially do so, I should like to indicate that you could perhaps follow up the matter, being the person responsible for the environs of this House and the excellent work progress that is being made. We hope it will be completed by the end of the summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The remarks made by the hon. member are, of course, well noted and the program to which he refers is under way. I have not had time since assuming this function to see whether it is proceeding at a pace sufficient to accommodate everyone who wants to come to the House of Commons or to the Parliament buildings.
1 certainly agree with the hon. member that this place and this building should be as accessible as possible to everyone. I am glad to have the support of the hon. member in order to implement that program as soon as possible.
Main Estimates, 1980-81



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59, 1 move:
That the estimates of sums required for the year ending March 31, 1981, be referred to the several standing committees of the House, as follows:
Shall 1 dispense from reading this very long motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that the estimates for the year ended March 31, 1981, tabled on Tuesday April 22, 1980, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: Motion above referred to as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications Votes 1,5, 10 and 15
Secretary of State Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20. L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 65, 70, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 120 and 125 To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, L40, L45, L50, 55 and 60
National Defence Votes 1,5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on Finance. Trade and Economic Affairs Economic Development Vote 1 Finance Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 25 and 30
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, L40, L45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75 and 80 National Revenue Votes 1 and 5 Privy Council Vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Fisheries and Oceans Votes 1 and 5 To the Standing Committee on Health. Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 1 and 5 National Health and Welfare Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Social Development Vote 1
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20. 25, 30. L35, L40, 45, L50, L55, 60 and L65.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 Solicitor General Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 To the Standing Committee on Labour. Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 Labour Votes 1,5, 10 and 15 Secretary of State Votes 60 and 130

April 30, 1980
Order Paper Questions
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament Vote 5
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Finance Vote 20 Governor General Vote 1 Parliament Votes 1 and 10 Post Office Votes 1 and 5 Privy Council Votes 1,5, 15 and 30
Science and Technology Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 Secretary of State Vote 115 Supply and Services Votes 1 and 5 Treasury Board Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Energy. Mines and Resources Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, L35, L45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, L75, L80, L85, L90, L95 and 100 Public Works Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35,40, 45, 50 and L55 To the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines Privy Council Vote 25
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Privy Council Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development
Regional Economic Development Votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, L20, 25, 30, L35, L40, 45, 50, 55 and L60
To the Standing Committee on Transport Transport Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, L50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80,85, 90, L95, 100, 105 and 110 To the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 77 and 325.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In the past four years, did Air Canada issue passes to persons who have no government connection and, if so (a) what are their names, addresses, the names of the firms or organizations for which each worked and their position (b) in each case, for what reason was the pass issued?
2.	Which of the firms or organizations was a (a) private enterprise (b) non-profit or charitable organization?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1 and 2. The issuance of free and reduced rate transportation by all Canadian airlines is governed by the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission under the Aeronautics Act. Air Canada's practice in the application of these passes is similar to other Canadian carriers and the airline regards details of its promotional pass issuance as proprietary.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) other employees were on the payroll of the Northern Transportation Company Limited and its subsidiaries as at March 31, 1979?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Northern Transportation Company Limited (a) 92; (b) 39;
Grimshaw Trucking and Distributing Limited (a) 190; (b) 19.
Yellowknife Transportation Company Limited, also a wholly-owned subsidiary, is presently inactive. There are no employees.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, question No. 539 could be made an order for return, this return will be tabled immediately.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programmes or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Transport?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 would ask that you call starred question No. 106.
April 30, 1980


Mr. McKenzie: Did Canadian Aviation Electronics purchase hangars at the Winnipeg International Airport formerly owned by Air Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) at what cost in each case (c) did the Company pay the total agreed purchase price in each case (d) does the Company own the hangars fully, completely and outright (e) does the purchase agreement allow the Company to resell any of the hangars?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the reply to question 106 is as follows:
The management of Air Canada advises: Hangars and other buildings formerly owned by Air Canada and situated on Crown land at Winnipeg International Airport were sold to CAE Aircraft Ltd., pursuant to an agreement dated September 1, 1969, under the terms of which CAE Industries Ltd. acted as guarantor, (a) Six; (b) Air Canada considers this cost information proprietary; (c) and (d) The purchase price was fully paid and thus, CAE acquired title to the six buildings; (e) Following full payment, CAE Aircraft Ltd. was free to sell or otherwise dispose of any building, or buildings, acquired under the agreement.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it has come to my attention that the government may be considering calling the Bank Act as an order of the day for tomorrow. I know this is not the usual day to ask a House business question, but it would be very helpful if the government House leader could confirm that that is the case now.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to do so if my colleague would confirm to me that we will end debate on Bill C-19 today. It would help us to make up our minds. However,
Employment Tax Credit Act
we will let my colleague know later on today, depending on the progress of Bill C-19.


PRIVILEGE
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if there is unanimous consent, I would ask the House's indulgence to revert to tabling of documents so that my colleague, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), could table a document on behalf of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox).


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that we return to tabling of documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I am tabling a document as a result of an exchange on a question of privilege that occurred on Friday between the hon. member for Saskatoon-West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). I would ask leave to table a document that was requested by the hon. member for Saskatoon West.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 29, 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. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise again and continue debate on Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act.
As you will note from the beginning of my remarks, this is a bill with regard to budgetary matters and the widest possible discussion on the budgetary program of this government was permitted. I would like to continue where I left off. I believe I have about 12 minutes left and I will review very quickly the matter of energy pricing as provided by the leaders of the four western premiers found in their statement arising from the conference in Lethbridge.
I mentioned that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was preparing fully for his journey out west to negotiate a price for oil, and subsequently the

April 30, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
relationship of natural gas to oil. In preparing himself, the minister found it appropriate to start tossing punches left and right by in effect bringing forth a report that was intellectually dishonest. This was done by exercising the force majeure clause in the Syncrude contract and by recently publicly speculating on the possibility of a refinery tax on crude oil. 1 also understand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), that great wizard of economics or perhaps the great wizard of ooze or economic ooze, is planning another punch against western Canada, in particular Alberta, with regard to some possible changes to the Public Utilities Transfer Act. What a climate for negotiating an energy price agreement with western Canada!
As I said yesterday in talking about the economic leadership that is provided to the nation, 1 had referred to the filling of this vacuum which now exists on the other side, because the government of the day is not grappling with the real economic problems of this nation. I had stated that this gap was now being filled by some of the leaders of the provincial governments across this nation.
It was particularly profound that the four premiers of western Canada got together to attempt to lay a foundation of economic policy for this nation and refer it to the federal government. What was the second point that the premiers dwelt on? They stated that action is required to reduce Canada's reliance on foreign capital. Among steps required are a variety of tax measures which influence both the outflow of Canadian savings and the inflow of foreign savings. The federal government should examine such measures to increase the availability and effective mobilization of domestic savings for investment in Canada.
Indeed, they went on to say that incentives should be put in place to encourage Canadians and Canadian companies to buy equities in companies doing business in Canada and so ensure that the dividends and investments of these companies stay within Canada. The previous government of the Thirty-first Parliament was moving in that direction, a needed step.
Furthermore, the premiers went on to say that federal and provincial governments should give consideration to ongoing co-ordination of essential borrowing by governments and Crown corporations in international markets.
The last time that I looked at the extent of provincial borrowings outside the nation, which was several years ago, it exceeded $7 billion. Some of us proposed, and I was among them, that some of the accumulation of funds if kept in Alberta in a fund called the heritage savings trust fund might be lent to the provinces, if they so requested, to pay off some of this debt. Since that time interest rates have skyrocketed.
What was said is that federal and provincial ministers of finance could, for example, meet annually to plan and co-ordinate foreign borrowing in the light of current economic circumstances and the need to reduce Canada's reliance on foreign capital. This is suggested leadership in dealing with the economic, financial and fiscal climate of this nation.
The premiers also noted that the recent major natural gas discoveries in Alberta and British Columbia could provide a means to increase Canada's exports, thereby improving the balance of payments and strengthening the dollar. Subject to firm assurances by the National Energy Board that long-term Canadian natural gas needs are protected, the premiers urged the federal government to consider approval of further natural gas exports. Such exports should be tied, if practical, to a commitment to build the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
Recently in this Flouse we moved a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to direct the National Energy Board to consider the gasification of coal as long-term reserves following behind the existing natural gas reserves of western Canada. Not only is that essential, it is practical, and it should be done because the natural hydrocarbon reserves of western Canada are indeed very large. The minister indicated that he was not going to consider the gasification of coal as a backup source of natural gas to the vast fields of natural gas now existing in western Canada.
The western premiers recognized that an essential part of developing a national economic strategy requires the federal government to reduce the size of its budgetary deficit, and ultimately to balance its budget over the economic cycle. What has the government done? The government has skyrocketed the deficit to $14 billion in the current year. The premiers noted that it was important to distinguish between government spending on programs and services and government investment on capital projects which will enhance Canada's economic position, for example such things as port facilities, railway upgrading, hydroelectric and other energy projects.
They went to say that while a reduction in the federal deficit would likely have some adverse short-term effects, they could be offset by undertaking certain large, viable capital projects. These projects would have the desired effect of increasing employment, which this bill is all about, in a period of slower economic growth and at the same time providing productive assets which will strengthen the Canadian economy in the 1980s.
The premiers also noted that an important step in resolving Canada's balance of payments problem is to be able to identify the source of the difficulty. In 1979, for example, there was a $4.4 billion financial drain from Canada, the source and nature of which is not known, entered in the balance of payments tabulation as errors and omissions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member, but the bill before us relates to an employment tax credit. With all due respect, 1 think the hon. member has strayed a bit from the central point of the bill. Can he return to the subject?


William J. Yurko: Perhaps I will, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps 1 will come to the point of incentives for continued expansion of the housing stock, which is vitally important in western Canada
April 30, 1980

where the population is growing significantly. There is a shift from central Canada and eastern Canada to western Canada.
There are some people in this nation who forget about the economic contributions of Ontario to confederation in terms of providing employment for the graduates of the rest of Canada. For 25 years or more the economic activity in this nation has been primarily in Ontario. It was there for very specific reasons. Ontario had some economic advantages in confederation. It has subsidies which reversed and provided the opportunity for growth in Ontario. It was located strategically in terms of the vast population in the United States. It was a manufacturing centre. It was the research centre of Canada.
Ontario provided jobs for graduate boys and girls from all over Canada when there were no jobs anywhere else. I can vouch for that because in 1950, as a fresh graduate from Alberta, as one of 64 chemical engineers, literally 62 of us had to find employment in Ontario. Ontario provided the employment sustenance for youngsters from all over Canada. Ontario to a large degree sustained this nation in economic activity, research and development for a large number of years when there was no activity in many parts of the nation. I know all about it. I have repeatedly gone through the advantages that Ontario has enjoyed in confederation.
Just as in the United States, this situation in Canada has changed. As in the United States, capital and labour flows where there is opportunity. Indeed, if there is anything we have in this nation, it is that we have too large a deterrent effect on the flow of capital and labour to where the opportunity is. Just as in the United States where economic opportunities moved from the east coast to the central United States, then to the west coast and on to Texas, a similar situation is happening in Canada. It is a good situation. I have no difficulty with the fact that Ontario enjoyed its time in confederation as the most prominent and fastest growing area in confederation, but the situation has changed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue. Again I call to his attention the subject matter of the bill.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not intrude upon the privileges of hon. members for very long, perhaps 30 or 40 seconds.
1 simply want to make the point that with regard to providing employment, Ontario played a vital role in this area in past years. The economic climate in the nation is shifting. Some of it is shifting eastward because of the resources in the Newfoundland area. Some of it is shifting westward. Indeed, some is shifting northward in a massive way to some areas of the Yukon.
I want to make the point that in a federated country, one federated of different parts, regions and potentials, this is a
Employment Tax Credit Act
good thing. This is a wonderful thing that all of us as Canadians enjoy because Canadians can move anywhere in this vast land, this vast country of riches, and accept opportunity. In most cases that can be done without sacrifice and without need to give up on your culture, your language and your roots.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy); he has a very difficult job and I wish him well. 1 would also like to congratulate Madam Speaker on her appointment and all those who sit in the chair.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration has made a very simple request. I wish to quote from his statement when submitting the amendment:
The bill is very simple in its purpose. It is simply to extend for one further year the application of the employment tax credit program, a program which was brought in 1978 to provide a range of tax credits to private employers for creating additional or incremental employment.
I wish to quote another remark:
In the last year the tax credit program has provided close to 50,000 additional jobs, according to the best figures that we have, at a cost of approximately $100 million.
I then go to the next phrase, which hits me between the eyes:
Our estimates and evaluations show that about 60 per cent of those under the program were young people.
Good so far, but then he goes on to say:
The lax credit program seems to have provided a degree of benefit, particularly in the manufacturing industry, and it has had a fair degree of regional application.
The emphasis is mine. I have only two brief comments to make to the minister. If I can have his attention for no more than four minutes, I will make those comments and then sit down.
I wish to point out that as a small businessman I have had occasion to come across this program at the receiving end, and I feel that the total legislation is really open to abuse. The evidence that I have and which I would like to pass on is, to borrow a phrase, that it has had a fair degree of abuse.
I know of a number of occasions where small businessmen have applied to the local Manpower office for someone to fill an appointment or job with the result that an employee from the Manpower office journeyed to and solicited the employer to sign up for this program saying that he qualified for this program because it is a new job. I submit to the minister that this is not what the legislation was intended for in the first place, but it is happening. Estimates seem to point to 30 per cent or 40 per cent abuse. It is being abused in this way and employment tax credit is being applied under the program although these people would have been hired in any case. If the amendment is passed, as I am sure it will be, I hope the minister will undertake an honest evaluation of the program as far as that aspect is concerned.
In conclusion, I should like to pass on a little information to the minister and ask him possibly to intercede with his col-

April 30, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
league the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in connection with a matter which is very closely linked to employment and job incentive programs in northern Alberta. I should like to draw to the minister's attention that
16,000	jobs were created during the construction phase of Syncrude. Ten thousand of these were in Alberta and six thousand in the rest of Canada. Now a word about the cost-benefits. The cost of construction was over $2 billion, and of that sum more than $300 million was spent in central Canada just to purchase goods used in construction. Virtually every province received orders in connection with this gigantic plant. In addition, Syncrude created 3,200 permanent jobs, since increased to 3,800. With the Cold Lake plant ready to go at 2.3 times this size, agreement on oil pricing with Alberta which would allow this work to go ahead is of the highest importance since it would create many more jobs than would the legislation before us.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate, but before I speak to the bill 1 should like to make a couple of comments. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) on his appointment to the cabinet. I should like to say to him that a good many people from western Canada are putting a lot of faith in him that he will give a strong voice and accept representations from western Canada.
1 should also like to say, in regard to some references made prior to the opening of this Parliament about NDP members being something like eunuchs in harems, that I have taken a sample survey of the caucus and in each case when I asked the members if they were eunuchs they said no. We have been far too busy with our parliamentary duties to be seeking out any harem and 1 hope other members can say the same.
This debate has gone on before. The minister himself refers to the program as a temporary measure designed to ensure that an effective job-creation program continues while the details of an employment program to be introduced as soon as possible are finalized. The word that catches my eye here is the word "temporary." Temporary programs have to stop. Band-aid measures have gone on for far too long and they have helped to create the problem instead of lessening it.
1 do not think the government has stopped to evaluate the benefits of the band-aid programs which have gone on for so long. For almost 113 years Conservatives and Liberals have been responsible for the administration and they have put us into the devastating economic times in which we find ourselves today. We are living in a country today which is told in the Speech from the Throne it must look to the future and accept the restraints which are to be put upon us, that we must live within our means. The throne speech also says we shall have to make sacrifices to accept the challenges of the 1980s.
I see no need for Canadians to sacrifice to the extent they are sacrificing today in a country where we have so much, a high level of technology, a high standard of living and resources unparalleled anywhere in the world. At this time we find people leaving their homes and losing their jobs. Bill C-19
does nothing in the long term to reduce the level of unemployment to an acceptable one. The minister should be aware that as a band-aid measure this program extending employment tax credits will do nothing but complicate matters instead of lessening the unemployment burden in the long term. I am sure the hon. gentleman was intellectually inspired by the remarks of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), who made a very stimulating speech the other day on the bill before us.
1 should also like to tell the minister that we are happy the government was defeated in the last election. I say this because Brezhnev would not have been much different from Clark. Things in the country which Brezhnev controls are controlled by the government; every facet of the people's lives is controlled by the government with little regard for democratic procedure. In the country 1 am referring to, that is done through a dictatorial type of government and the government is the one that is reflected upon. You see, Mr. Speaker, in the case of this government, if we had continued without that election the people would have suffered hardships almost identical, not at the hands of this government but at the hands of the Conservatives and the multinational corporations to which they would have handed over control totally. To me, such a situation is unacceptable. I am glad the election came along and that the Conservative government was defeated.


Mr. Kempling:: Another socialist sucker!


Douglas Keith Anguish: As I said, the Liberals and the Tories have created this problem over the last 113 years. It has become a permanent one. Unemployment can no longer be treated as a temporary problem which will go away one day if we keep hanging on to band-aid measures of the kind we are now being asked to extend. It is a permanent problem and we shall have to adopt permanent solutions if we wish to overcome it.
According to official figures almost one million are unemployed. In real figures the total is more like a million and a half. They are tired of temporary measures too. Although a few hundred people may be made happy with temporary employment, enticing them to buy homes with heavy mortgages and to obtain easy access to credit from banks which gobble up their hard-earned cash and savings, what actually happens? They are left without their jobs, the temporary measures are over, the unemployment problem is still there and they have nothing to rely on; they have no savings, no economic strategy to which to look forward in hard and pressing times.
I should like now to talk for a few moments about some of the programs the government started and which I thought were good steps toward bringing unemployment in this country under control, programs which go back as far as the late 1960s and the early 1970s. One program I was very happy to see brought out in the late sixties was a program called New Starts. The concept of some of the New Starts programs was to look at ways of training adults to enable them to participate more fully in the work force. In Saskatchewan they started a program that I was very familiar with. Many methods of
April 30, 1980

training adults were created there. Life skills programs improved not just the level of technical training but also the way people cope with the things happening in everyday life. There were many other programs-right down to the basic literacy level-which were introduced to Saskatchewan New Starts and which were quite acceptable to Canadians who required the services which New Starts could provide.
They were given a five-year mandate to develop these programs of unique ways of training adults, and there was an extension given to the program in the early seventies; but upon completion of the program most of the work done was put on microfilm or microfish and shipped back to Ottawa, and now the people across this country do not know what happened to the program developed by Saskatchewan New Starts and the other New Starts such as those in Alberta and in the mari-times, to which people were receptive and warmed to and which provided much benefit. Now these programs have been shelved to a large extent. They are not moved out to where they can do the most good. 1 thought that those progrms were a good link in the chain of problem solving and doing some kind of planning where there was a problem-and obviously the government here identified it as unemployment-and then some training was carried out. However, then they should be moved to a work force which has an industrial strategy and long-term economic planning that can ensure some kind of security in this country.
There is another program I can think of and on which 1 would like to compliment the government for its input. Incidentally, the New Starts program was funded federally and administered through the provincial government, which I think is a very good approach. The Saskatchewan training opportunity program was funded federally and administered by the provincial government.
Some of the programs took the approach of training people to take over industries within their areas where there was some interest. 1 think of the Saskatchewan training opportunity program at the Loon Lake reserve within the area I represent. The operation was a tourist operation. It had been leased out to a private operator for many years at a very low rate, and the band was not receiving much of a return from that operation. The training program was funded by the federal government and, again, 1 commend the government for that. The program was to train the people of that area to operate their own resort and to train them in areas of basic education, life skills, management skills and the technical skills which are required to run an economically viable operation.
What happened? It turned out that that program was actually a band-aid measure. At the end of the period of time during which the government had offered funding, it cut it off completely without any evaluation whether that program had succeeded or not. I say that Bill C-19 does much the same thing. There will be very little evaluation and very little done to overcome the permanent problem which has come upon us, that of unemployment.
Employment Tax Credit Act
1 think what Bill C-19 does is continue to give subsidies to large companies. If they are manufacturing a product which people in Canada today are not in a position to buy, when the program is over people are laid off and the company is in bad shape because of large inventories they cannot move on the market because economic times are so bad. Small businesses cannot really take advantage of the program either because small businesses are not in an economic position to take on new staff, and the very few which are do so to clean up things which would not normally stimulate long-term jobs within their companies. Small businesses take short-term measures to clean up their own in-house operations.
When I was in business just prior to being elected a member of Parliament, I could not take advantage of the employment tax credit program. It was of no benefit to my company. My company did not qualify under the program, and I did not have extra capital to use this program to full advantage, as do large corporations.
I see the program is not benefiting other areas of the country. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), when speaking about this bill the other day, said that many people are being laid off right now who will not benefit from the employment tax credit program. He referred largely to the lumber industry in British Columbia and in his own riding. In Saskatchewan alone this month three mills have closed down, and one plywood plant has closed down because of the bad economic times we are facing.
1 submit that employment is not really the big problem in this country today. The big problem is that we do not have any long-term economic or industrial strategy to keep this country moving and our people in the standard of living to which they have grown accustomed. We let them down with band-aid measures such as the one we are being asked here today to extend. I think we should sit down and evaluate what has happened. We should take a look at this country and, looking back as far as we want to, we will find that those permanent problems are here and will plague us for a long time into the future.
My riding has a largely agricultural background. The agriculture industry has likely been the number one industry for quite a number of years now, although it is over-shadowed now by some resource development such as heavy oil development, some potash development to the south, mineral development in the north, mining development in the north and a timber industry which was thriving until we hit these bad economic times. Now lumber companies cannot afford to carry their inventories and they are laying off large staffs. I submit that the people in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency will not benefit at all if Bill C-19 is passed. There is nothing in it that I can think of that would benefit them.
I would like to hear from the minister what industries or small businesses would be employing people in Canada who are being laid off now. What short-term jobs can they go into? People are being laid off in the wood industry, the lumber industry and the auto industry across this country. Those people have a hard time finding jobs. They are some of the
582

April 30, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
hard core unemployed. How is this program going to help them? I submit that it will help not at all. I reiterate that it will help large companies and no one else in this society of ours. In fact, in the long term it will not even help large companies because they will have been helped by a band-aid measure, and if they cannot see through this very devious program of spending $100 million of taxpayers' dollars, then they are not running a very efficient shop either.
Communities like Meadow Lake, The Battlefords, La Loche, Patuanak and many others have very little manufacturing and very few large businesses. What help is this program going to be to the people in those places? I think of young people who are suffering the largest amount of unemployment or the brunt of unemployment in places like Loon Lake, Hafford, Turtleford and Lrenchman Butte. What will this program do for them?
The other day I looked at the youth employment program that is being offered by the federal government. Live applications came in from two communities in my constituency. The deadline has passed, but 1 do not think the government had any commitment to telling the people about the availability of that program. I am sure many young people throughout this country want to work, but when 1 know that only five applications came from the riding I represent and that they came from just two communities, there has to be something wrong with the way the government has put this program out. The people do not have access to information about the program until after the deadline cuts it off.
On becoming a member of Parliament and moving into my seat in the House of Commons, I received a press release about the youth employment program the federal government had introduced, and by the time I got information about the program it was only a couple of days before the deadline. How can people have access even to these band-aid programs, with which, incidentally, I disagree, if they do not know about them? The government does not pass out information. There is no good, clear line of communication.
1 say that Bill C-19 must be repealed. We should not extend a program which helps worsen the economic times of this couontry by spending taxpayers' dollars with no clear direction. There is no clear commitment to the Canadian people. We should be more concerned about addressing ourselves to high interest rates and the lack of economic policy and industrial strategy which I mentioned before.
I think this government, instead of bringing in such temporary measures as the employment tax credit program, should be looking at problem solving, the first step of which is to raise an awareness of the problem among members of the government. I think all members of the House and also the Canadian people realize that we are in troubled times now and that we face problems in this country.
The second step is to define the problem. I believe a gross error has been committed by the Conservative government which was just defeated as well as the Liberal government
which is in office now because the problem to which this bill is addressed is defined as the problem of unemployment. That is wrong. The problem is not unemployment, the problem is that we have no economic policy to guide this country and no industrial strategy.
The NDP has been calling for an economic policy and an industrial strategy for some time now. These policies are set by the Canadian people through our conventions on the basis of thorough research which has been done by those people as well as by our research people. They have developed programs which I believe the government should study seriously so as to guide us with some kind of economic strategy.
The next step in the problem solving method is to establish some criteria on which this House would be willing to work so that we could have rules to follow. It is obvious that members of the House do not always wish to follow the rules that are set down for them. On the basis of those criteria we should look at all possible solutions instead of keeping a closed mind and pushing through all the measures possible because there is a majority government opposite. What we should do is to provide solutions following consultation, as was promised in the throne speech, with all members of Parliament, and members of Parliament should seek out solutions and ideas from their constituents.
It is amazing to see the large amount of information which can be gathered from one's constituents, whether one travels by car, by train or by aeroplane. The ideas of the Canadian people are very important and are often overlooked. 1 think we should gather together all the solutions at our disposal to implement an economic policy and an industrial strategy. Once we have all these solutions in hand, we should look at the criteria.
Implementation is the next step in the problem solving process, and it should be carried out jointly instead of trying to push through a band-aid program, as the Conservatives did and the Liberals are doing now, asking for the extension of a program which does nothing but compound the problems in this country by spending money which should not be spent and, in the long term, creating more unemployment. It appears that in the short term this legislation would actually reduce unemployment, but in fact it does not.
After implementation, I should like to convey to the minister, through you, sir, that some kind of evaluation of all the programs we have had for many years should be made. Part of that evaluation should take into consideration the recommendations contained in the Auditor General's report, the 1 5 or so studies that were implemented during the six-year term of office of the Auditor General to improve the efficiency and accountability of the government to the Canadian people. The evaluation process should consider all those studies in the context of the definition of the problem and compare them to see whether or not the problems which existed last year are no longer here today. That should be implemented after the evaluation has taken place.
That is what 1 mean when I say that long-term planning should involve a problem solving method and should develop
April 30, 1980

the needed economic policy and industrial strategy to guide this country in the future. At a time of high unemployment anything is better than nothing, but this bill certainly brings us no improvement. As 1 mentioned to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, the temporary program in fact accelerates the permanent problems we have. It only appears to solve the problem. I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider this legislation, although 1 am sure this bill will be passed. I should like to ask that the extension of this program not be considered in the House.
Before closing I should like to reiterate the words of John Foster Dulles which have been quoted in the House. He said that the measure of success is not whether we have a tough problem to deal with but whether it is the same problem we had last year. In fact, it is the same problem and it has been the same problem we have had for decades. I say this has to stop. The program certainly does not help the people on the 14 reserves in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency and it does not help the people who are being laid off from the mills and the plywood plants.
The Indian people are not even included in the unemployment statistics to which the Minister of Employment and Immigration alludes every once in a while. How will this program help the 20 per cent higher unemployment in Newfoundland? 1 strongly disagree with Bill C-19 which proposes to continue the employment tax credit program for one year and I ask that no more consideration be given to the extension of these band-aid measures, and that from that point on the Liberal government honour its commitment and work with all members of the House to implement a program of long-term planning for an economic policy and an industrial strategy.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words about the employment tax credit bill which we have before us this afternoon to extend this program of employment for one more year. It was first brought in in 1978 and has been in effect for the years since. Last year some 50,000 jobs were created under this program costing nearly $100 million. 1 think it is interesting to note that many members on the other side have been criticizing this bill, even though this is a program with a somewhat similar approach to that adopted by the Conservatives when they were in power for a brief period.
It was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) who seemed to be speaking about economic leadership almost as if we were back nine months ago just after the May 22 general election, because he described the economic leadership vacuum which existed at that time. The thought that occurred to me was: was he not here on the night of February 11 and was he not here on February 13 when his minister of finance brought down the budget?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean December 11 and 13.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes, in December. If he was not here on that night, then he did not realize that the Canadian people and certainly this House of Commons rejected the economic lead-
Employment Tax Credit Act
ership of the former Conservative government. Of course, on February 18 the Canadian people rejected their economic leadership. His whole pitch seemed to be that there is no other policy than their policy. If their policy was so good, how is it that not only the House of Commons rejected it but that the Canadian people rejected it in the general election of February 18?
The important thing to recognize in Bill C-19 is that this program is especially useful in communities with relatively well developed industrial and commercial sections. It is obvious that if you are going to have tax credits then you must have a relatively well developed commercial or industrial sector. That is why this bill is so important in communities where this kind of situation exists.
I am told that more than 25,000 employers have signed contracts with the department under the Employment Tax Credit Act, and that 92 per cent have indicated they like the program and would use it again. The greatest number numerically, of course, were employers in Ontario and Quebec where there are the largest number of employees in the country. On a percentage basis, New Brunswick was second in the use of the program. The program was widely used in the Atlantic region. On average, 88 per cent of use in the Atlantic region was by firms with fewer than 20 employees.
Of course, the argument by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) that these benefits all go to large corporations is just not true. If we look at British Columbia we find that 82 per cent were small companies with less than 20 employees. In Ontario the figure was 77 per cent, and in Quebec 72 per cent were companies with 20 employees or fewer.
In the fiscal year 1979-80 some 39,000 agreements were signed and about 51,000 unemployed Canadians were placed in new jobs as a result of the employment tax credit program.
The distribution of jobs under this program was 51 per cent in manufacturing, 20 per cent in retailing and wholesaling and 12 per cent in the service industries. Some 43 per cent of the employees worked in manufacturing, machinery and fabricating operations, while 15 per cent worked in clerical jobs and 7 per cent in sales. The majority of agreements were signed for 52-week periods.
Employees in the Atlantic provinces and the Gaspe region of Quebec can earn a maximum of $4,160 in tax credits. In most other regions the maximum tax credit earned for each employee is $3,120, and in the remainder of the country the maximum is $3,640.
The program is not viewed as one that involves an uncessari-ly large amount of paperwork. For instance, there are only two one-page forms to be filled in by the employer and a third that is optional. Some 84 per cent of the employers said the tax credit was an important underlying factor in their decision to hire under the employment tax credit program.

April 30, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
A sample based on 5,000 employed under the program reveals that 52 per cent were living on unemployment insurance benefits prior to finding employment through the program, while another 5 per cent were living on welfare. Others were being supported by family members, living on savings or on pensions. All had been unemployed for a minimum of two weeks, but the average length of time they were unemployed and looking for work was some 15 weeks or almost four months. To say that these people would be employed in any event is certainly not true.
Young Canadians 25 years and under made up 55 per cent of those employed, and these were equally divided between male and female. Over 34 per cent of those employed were females.
The acceptance of the program by small businesses is reflected in the fact that 77 per cent of all agreements were signed by employers employing 20 or fewer, and 40 per cent of those employers had a maximum of five in their nominal work force.
The employment tax credit program is a most economical plan to operate because only 100 people carry out the entire program throughout the country. This is certainly an important program in areas with well developed industrial and commercial sectors. Equally true is the fact that programs like Canada Works and Young Canada Works, which were cut off last year by the previous government in all parts of Ontario and western Canada, except some parts of B.C., are terribly important. Unless you have a well developed commercial and industrial community the incentive tax credit plan will not work because you do not have the private employer. Certainly that is true in respect of native people on Indian reserves, such as those in the Algoma-Manitoulin area where we have 12 reserves with some 5,000 status Indians. This kind of program is not applicable in such areas as programs like Canada Works which are direct employment programs.
We hear hon. members opposite say these are band-aid programs. That may be true. On the other hand, welfare and unemployment insurance certainly do not provide the answer. Most people are pleased to see the community benefits that have taken place in so many communities, particularly in the Algoma-Manitoulin area, through programs such as Canada Works. I hope the minister in reviewing the programs will be bringing in a program later this year directed toward rural communities, native groups and young people.
Last fall when the Conservative minister of employment and immigration cut off the Canada Works program we knew we were going to have 400 or 500 people unemployed, some 45 per cent or almost half of them young people, because of the cutback. At the time 1 organized an employment seminar in my constituency to review direct employment programs because I thought it was important that we make known to the government the importance of these programs. At the seminar we had employers, community groups, people in the teaching profession, people from direct employment programs, both federal and provincial, and a good cross-section of the communities in that area sat down and discussed these direct employment programs.
I think the concept when the former minister of employment and immigration brought in the Canada Works program in 1977 was that for some four or five years we were going to have several hundred thousand young people coming into the labour force in Canada, some of whom could not be absorbed immediately into the labour force. To accommodate these people we adopted programs like the incentive tax credit program and other direct employment programs. The benefits to communities, especially in rural areas, in terms of improved social services, community services, wharves, parks and recreational facilities is pretty obvious. There is hardly a community in my constituency which has not benefited in a major way.
These programs not only provide many young people with their first opportunity to get a job when private enterprise cannot accomodate them, they make very significant improvements to the community at large.
I am certainly pleased to see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) present here, because in many areas of Canada the Canada Works program, which I hope will be reinstated this year, will work in conjunction with the efforts of the minister's department, particularly the small craft harbours branch, in the development of wharves and marina facilities. This work has made a tremendous impact in the way of improved facilities throughout our area. The north channel of Lake Huron is one of the three best cruising areas any place in the world, yet it is very difficult to secure enough funding to improve marinas and wharf facilities in that area from the regular maintenance and capital programs of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However, the work done through the two programs has resulted in tremendous improvements.
One ends up not only providing employment, but improving the community facilities and in the long haul developing the tourist industry, for which there is such very great potential. This bill is not a total employment strategy, as the members opposite have said. We agree that it is an important step in stimulating employment in the private sector. I hope that this program will be followed by other programs of direct employment, particularly for those rural areas which unfortunately will be unable to take advantage of this program, as they have of others in the past which have been terribly important. I hope that they will be important in the future.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker. I would first of all like to respond to a statement made by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). Your ascendancy to power once again was not a national acceptance of your economic policies, and you know that.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Frederick John King: Your policies have been rebuked at the polls, your leadership discredited.
April 30, 1980


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Frederick John King: I will, Mr. Speaker. The majority received by the side opposite was based on a Quebec vote which was given entirely on the basis of an appeal other than the economic issues that plague Canada. Quebec did not vote, 73 to one, an endorsement of the Liberal party's economic policies, and they should know that.


Mr. Dawson:: Seventy-four.


Frederick John King: 1 hope that the Liberals are not now telling Canadians to accept a dollar and cents premise because they received endorsation in the late election. If that is the government's theme, it is certainly living in a world lacking in reality. It is especially dangerous to us as Canadians if the members opposite believe that statement made earlier by the hon. member for Algoma.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I thought that I would straighten you out.


Mr. Rompkey:: Tell it like it is.


Frederick John King: I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-19, the amendment to the Employment Tax Credit Act. I support the intent of this act and reluctantly accept its necessity. I am pleased to join in the debate because it is very apparent that this opposition must, at every opportunity, lay at the feet of the government the total responsibility for the Canadian circumstance which requires putting into effect such band-aid solutions to a major national health problem.
We have a bill to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, to extend the act for one year to create incremental employment in the private sector. The tax credit ranges from $1.50 to $2 per hour depending on unemployment levels in the areas affected. It is $2 in the Atlantic provinces and Gaspe, $1.50 in southern Ontario, southern Alberta, B.C. and the Montreal and Hull areas, and $1.75 in the remainder of Canada. Of the benefit available, 50 per cent goes to Ontario and Quebec manufacturing industries.
What is the reason for the necessity of such a bill? In 1968 there were just over 300,000 people unemployed; the figure projected for 1980 is over 1.25 million people unemployed. That attests to the years of bankrupt Liberal fiscal policies or, more astutely put, lack of policy.
This bill is only a stop-gap measure. We still do not have a long-term fiscal policy or even a short-term policy. 1 would say to the members on my left down at the end of the chamber that we Conservatives provided that type of long-term projection and policy. What about some long-term benefits created by a sense of fiscal responsibility not shown by the side opposite? They can look up the term "fiscal responsibility" in their dictionaries when they go home.
The necessity for this act symbolizes the depth of poverty and lack of resolve and inspiration which exists in this government. While perpetuating the spending regime which catapult-
Employment Tax Credit Act
ed the nation into the disastrous economic situation which presently exists, this government proposes to apply salve to the symptoms but nothing to the disease. The disease is Liberal spending policies of the past decade and the present decade which have given Canada the largest measure of deficit spending in the history of this nation, if not in the history of the world of nations.
Having done this indignity to the economic sanity of Canada, this government now proposes to continue its policies of excessive spending without recourse to a rational application of an appropriate increase in federal government revenues. This is a government of political expediency with a quest and a thirst for power which takes it beyond the concept of acting in the national interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: Where is this great thrust, Mr. Speaker, to act for Canada? It is not to be found in the throne speech nor is it to be found in the substance of this act. How is this government addressing the prospect of 1.2 million people unemployed in 1980? We find only a preoccupation with consolidating power in Ottawa in the Liberal complex that so permeates all levels of our social and economic order. This preoccupation works to the exclusion of economic commonsense. Thus we see this government enunciating its own creed and, with galling audacity, attributing it to Canadians as a whole.
We are told by that gang over there that Canadians do not want less government, that they want more effective government. My exposure to citizens in the riding which 1 represent with honour tells me that Canadians want less government and they want more effective government. We proposed to provide both but we were denied the opportunity. It is apparent that this government offers just one option, and that option is more government.
The Employment Tax Credit Act is symbolic of a spineless approach to correcting a Liberal induced economic disaster. They offer a palliative, costly, temporary dilution of the problem-and do not attack the substance of the problem itself. To attack the problem might disprove the Liberal campaign position that no sacrifices are necessary to live in Canada.
We agree that the initiative provided by this bill is presently necessary. It is only necessary because this reactivated, worn out bunch with its socialist leanings is not prepared to look beyond today to address the ills of tomorrow caused by the sins of yesterday. We support the extension of this bill but decry the absence of national direction to eliminate the circumstances that create unacceptable employment levels.
These were the circumstances which the government we formed under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was prepared to address head on.
I should like to put on the record a rather alarming resume of a report in the Vancouver Province. It focuses on only one

April 30, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
aspect of our national dilemma-a denunciation of the deficit spending policies of the present government. All members of this House should pause and consider how the Employment Tax Credit Act will address our national problems. The article is a recitation of disaster, the authors of which sit opposite. On April 27 there appeared in the Sunday business report section of the Province the following:
Every child born in Canada this year will get one bit of inheritance he or she may not want-a slice of the national debt.
Along with the rest of us, the newborn babe will be expected to share the burden of shouldering a debt load of around $60 billion. That's about $2,540 each at present, and will be closer to $3,000 each by year-end.


An hon. Member:: By an irresponsible Liberal government.


Frederick John King: Hon. members opposite may smile. Maybe they like it but I do not. 1 do not want my grandchildren to be faced with it nor the new daughter of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: The article continues:
The interest on the national debt this year is expected to reach $10.2 billion or a staggering $432 each.
The country's estimated nine million taxpayers could look at it this way:
In 1980 they are expected to pay personal income tax of around $16.5 billion or an average $1,833 each. $1,133 from each of the country's taxpayers would just be enough to meet the interest on the national debt, leaving a scant $700 each for other government purposes.
It's no wonder that the size of the national debt and the mini-budget of the past week which added another $10.7 billion to the debt figure cause concern.
It causes concern on this side but I do not think it causes very much concern across the way. The article goes on to say:
At that rate, within a couple of years all of the income tax raised would be insufficient to meet the interest payments on the debt.
Further along the author writes:
And debt burdens incurred by the Crown corporations and agencies in their own name but guaranteed by the federal government have certainly been galloping upwards.
According to Canada Tax Foundation figures, contingent liabilities of the federal government through its guarantees of Crown corporation debts increased from $18.8 billion in 1977 to $28.6 billion in 1979.
He then pointed out that economists are concerned about the borrowings by Crown corporations and agencies because they do not know exactly where the money is coming from. Later in the article he writes:
-deficit budgets... hamper the private sector's ability to raise capital. If the government is in the marketplace as a big borrower, Canadian industry must look elsewhere for its funds.
He is referring here to the criticism voiced by someone else who is also reported as saying:
"If there's enough government paper around, the private sector has to offer higher rates or go out of the country. Either way it's more expensive for them."
This is what causes our problem, Mr. Speaker. It is why this bill is before the House and why it should be extended; under these circumstances we do not have many options. The deplorable thing is that there are no long-term initiatives proposed by hon. members opposite to correct the basic ills in the land.
The government cares little about this aspect of our nation's character. 1 suspect the reason for this inattention is that there is a political advantage to ducking reality. There is a practical advantage for those who pursue socialist philosophies-an advantage which generates dependence on government programs like this one and programs for spending which tend to be self-perpetuating. Socialists know that as government's role increases, the demand for government intervention also increases. The outcome is that government momentum carries itself.
We see this in the unseemly haste to metrication which is being propelled not by national demand but is being carried by a bureaucratic offensive on the part of the Metric Commission. Those who espoused government intervention found their positions weakened by an active, vibrant, self-sufficiency in the private sector.
What do we propose, then, Mr. Speaker? Just that it is time for Canadians and the Canadian government to use common-sense in the nation's economy. Canadians are prepared to share the burden of restoring health to the nation. There is an opportunity to do great things for Canada but those opportunities have to be seized.
Home ownership has to be encouraged, Mr. Speaker. Small business enterprise must be encouraged by reducing red tape and taxing interventions. The national debt and our deficits must be reduced so that we can capitalize on our natural advantages in the areas of energy and resource supply. We must reduce our dependence on foreign capital inflow so that we can control internally such important factors as our interest rates.
I should like now to refer to specific situations in my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen which have a bearing on this act. The lumber industry in my riding is still trying to "tough it out" as a headline in the Vancouver Sun of April 23 stated. A front page article begins by saying:
The angry talk in the beer parlors and union halls, the echo of a few voices in a cavernlike mill are becoming the new sounds of the local lumber industry, where just a few months ago man and machine hummed harmoniously if noisily.
The article also points out that 8,000 people have been laid off. On the same page there is another article with the headline "Spending Climbs-National Debt 'Costs $1,000 per taxpayer' ", That figure could be updated considerably, Mr. Speaker.
1 think it is significant that those two headlines are on the same page and I hope that significance is not lost on hon. members opposite who are in a position to change the course of this nation's economic policy. The price drop has been so severe that in some cases mills can only sell the finished product below the cost of the timber itself. The necessity is to clear the shelves at any price to generate cash flow for the banker.
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I drove to Grand Forks in my riding. I passed the Pope and Talbot sawmill at Midway. The parking lot in front of the mill was empty. Ordinarily there are hundreds of cars in the lot. That is the sort of local tragedy that is upon us simply because the government of the day

April 30, 1980

refused and is still refusing to face up to the economic realities that exist in Canada. Our government cannot go burying its head in the sand and offering employment tax credits when it should be delving deeper into problems in order to remedy them.
We need a revitalized housing construction industry to stimulate lumber sales and employment, Mr. Speaker, and Bill C-19 will not achieve this. The mortgage interest deductibility provision proposed by this party would have done a great deal toward it.
Our economy is suffering because of the shortsightedness of members of the government. Mariner Homes Limited is a corporate citizen of Penticton in the Okanagan valley. This is a community city which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) knows well. We have met with him there and 1 am sure he will admit it is a lovely community. It is a real shock to a community like that when a manufacturing complex, such as Mariner Homes, closes its doors, as was the case a few days ago. Mariner Homes put $3 million annually into the local economy of Penticton. Of that, $1.5 million was spent in wages and the other $1.5 million was used in the purchase of goods and services. How does the Employment Tax Credit Act respond to the situation of those closed doors? It will take two million hours of subsidized wage contributions just to replace the void created by the closing of this manufacturing complex in Penticton.
There has been nothing offered of substance and encouragement to those entrepreneurs and creative people who wish to use their inventive skills for the benefit of Canada, particularly in the expanded field of energy. There is nothing new proposed that is equivalent to the energy bank proposal which was contained in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West.
1 think of a man in Merritt, Mr. Lange, who has proceeded with a new concept in a wind-energized electric generator package called "The Onion". Mr. Lange's invention represents the type of activity that not only offers Canada energy advantage, but can provide permanent employment opportunities to many thousands of Canadians in both the development and production activity that will result.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: What has happened to farmers in my riding?


Eugene Whelan: They are doing good.


Frederick John King: The hon. member is right. It is not because of federal action but because the provincial government has underwritten their operating cost of production. You cannot take any pride in that, sir.


Eugene Whelan: They took my program and put it into force. You cannot take pride either.
Employment Tax Credit Act


Frederick John King: I take considerable pride in that policy. I worked for the minister of agriculture in the provincial government for some 12 years. 1 was involved in the negotiations of the terms of that package which the minister speaks of with such skepticism.
What is happening to farmers in my riding? Federal action and federal policies would put them, like other industries in the area, in extreme jeopardy. It is only because of provincial initiative in the form of financial underwriting of the cost of production that our farmers survive. Land at $12,000 an acre, tractors that cost $17,000 versus $1,700 25 years ago when 1 started farming, tree fruit packing lines that cost $2 million to instal, are examples of high costs. The B.C. farmers would much prefer that the government address directly the basic ills of the land rather than apply efforts such as we debate today, efforts which fail to attack the problems which have been defined, redefined and redefined again. Look at what the briefs from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the BCFGA ask. Farmers are aware of the facts of life. It is unfortunate there are not more farmers sitting opposite.
Perhaps it would be asking too much of a government with a record of irresponsible, reckless actions and inappropriate policies to throw off that cloak and do what is right for our nation. One can only hope that somewhere on the other side of the House there exists that germ of spirit that seeks to correct the disease rather than soothe the symptom. Until that happens and as long as this government exists, Canadians will be forced to accept short-term solutions, such as those contained in the Employment Tax Credit Act. One could more heartily endorse this extension of the provision of the act if there were a parallel effort to address our underlying problems. Unfortunately, this government shows no such resolve. In this circumstance it is safe to suggest that this program, and others of similar intent, will be with us for some time to come.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity of speaking in this House since the election of last February, and I want to take the opportunity of thanking the people in my riding of Beaches for sending me here in the first place. I would like to say a few words about one of the great men I follow, Mr. Andrew Brewin, who served my constituency, which was then the constituency of Greenwood, for 18 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: While I certainly have a great deal of respect for him, I am sure that while he was in this House he earned the respect of other members.
My immediate predecessor, Mr. Richardson, was not in the House long enough to make his own mark. However, I know Mr. Richardson rather well and even though we disagree politically and philosophically, in my view he is an honest and decent man. If I can represent my constituency as well as my two predecessors did, then I will be happy to be in this place.

April 30, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
I want to say at the outset that I do not believe the measures proposed in this bill will do much of anything to cure the unemployment crisis we have in Canada today. The unemployment tax credit program is intended to provide a federal tax credit of up to $2 per hour for a 12-month period for employers who hire additional workers beyond their normal requirements.
The minister has described the measures in this bill as temporary and designed to fill a gap while an employment strategy is developed by the government. I want to remind the minister and this House that this government has been saying the same thing for many years and the people of Canada are still waiting to see some action by the government to alleviate unemployment.
In May, 1971, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told this House that full employment was the goal of his government. In 1968 when the Prime Minister came into office, the rate of unemployment was 4.5 per cent and there were 360,000 people unemployed. In 1978 there were 911,000 people unemployed and the unemployment rate was 8.4 per cent. As of March, 1980 the number of unemployed Canadians was 969,000. When you consider the hidden unemployed, those people who have dropped out of the work force or are not considered as being unemployed, the rate is over 1,526,000 people unemployed. The people of Canada are still waiting anxiously for a full employment program.
I would like nothing better than to believe the government when it says today that it has a renewed commitment toward an employment strategy. 1 would like nothing better than to believe we are finally going to see action that will alleviate the despair that has become commonplace among many hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians. 1 would like nothing better than to believe that. However, the record of this government is such that I do not hold out much hope that we will see the kind of action required.
Certainly the proposals set out in this bill will not even make a dent in the unemployment rate and its value is questionable. In the first instance, the problem with this program is that the employment created is usually of a temporary nature. There is nothing to stop employers from taking advantage of this program by claiming tax credits for employees they intended to hire in any event, regardless whether the program was in place or not. Again, it only benefits those employers who are in a position to pay taxes. Those employers who need help the most will not receive it under this program. There is nothing to prevent employers from using this program to create shortterm employment that ends as soon as the subsidy ends. However, the measure does allow the government to create a rosy picture of the number of jobs it has created. That is typical of the cynical approach this government has been taking toward the unemployed in our country.
Unemployment and the effects of that unemployment on the lives of all Canadians is a national disgrace. The fact that there are programs today such as unemployment insurance
and social welfare that lessen the economic impact on the unemployed and make it less severe to be unemployed today than it was in the depression days of the 1930s does not alleviate the human stress that being out of work causes to our unemployed and their families.
In a study prepared for the use of the joint economic committee of the Congress of the United States by Dr. Harvey Brenner of John Hopkins University, the effect that unemployment has on homicides, suicides, imprisonment and mental and physical ailments was well documented. That study clearly showed that an increase in unemployment had a severe impact on the well-being of society as a whole.
Even a 1 per cent increase in unemployment creates a legacy of stress, aggression and illness affecting society long into the future. The human tragedy alone of unemployment revealed by this study is shocking enough and, even though it is a study conducted in the United States, 1 am told by Canadian people who are conversant with that study that the same effects can probably be applied to the Canadian scene. 1 wish to read into the record one of the salient points of that study which may be of interest to this House and the minister. 1 quote:
The 1.4 per cent rise in unemployment during 1970 has cost our society nearly $7 billion in lost income due to illness, mortality, and in added state prison and mental hospital outlays. To this must be added public outlays of some $2.8 billion annually over the 1970-1975 period for jobless and welfare payments associated with the sustained 1.4 per cent rise in unemployment. Additional outlays not included here are the costs of care in federal institutions. Even excluding these latter outlays, the cost of the sustained 1.4 per cent rise in unemployment during 1970 is at least $21 billion. And as noted earlier, this entirely excludes the impact of the further increases in unemployment since 1970 as well.
These dollars represent resources lost or diverted from productive use. They represent wealth never to be realized, lost forever to our economy and society. They, in part, measure the human tragedy of unemployment. But most significantly, their loss could have been avoided.
1 said earlier that the federal government knows how to minimize unemployment. It knows how to reduce it using monetary and fiscal policy and to keep it down. This study, for the first time, offers our government the capability to accurately and fully measure the impact of these economic policies. Economic policy planners can and will now know the full and tragic cost of unemployment if they fail to hold it at a minimum.
They are obligated to use this new wisdom.
I highly recommend that study to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I am sure it would help to educate him on the problems of unemployment in Canada.
If the wisdom reported in this congressional committee report is to be used in Canada, if the human and financial costs are to be avoided in Canada, government, business and industry, organized labour and educational institutions must be brought together to mount a concerted, imaginative and innovative effort to give our unemployed back their dignity and sense of worth by providing them with work.
Fooling around with measures that are contained in this bill will not do it. It took no imagination at all to put together what is in this bill. In fact, the measures are worse than useless. In fact, it is not possible to talk about having an employment strategy without talking about an economic strategy for Canada.
April 30, 1980

In the 12-year period or so since this government was elected, we have experienced the worst levels of unemployment and inflation since the great depression. In this period we have seen plant closures and layoffs to such an extent that many economists are now referring to Canada as being in a stage of de-industrialization. Certainly in the industry I am most acquainted with, the electrical-electronics industry, there have been drastic changes over the past ten years. Ten years ago, Canada had a fairly strong electronics manufacturing industry. Over the past five years alone, nearly 20,000 jobs have disappeared.
In addition, we have lost thousands of potential jobs through a combination of two principal factors-inadequate research and development, and increased foreign imports. For example, in 1967 we imported $63 million worth of electrical goods. In 1977 we imported $421 million worth of those products. Today you cannot buy a Canadian-made radio. Fairly soon you will not be able to buy a Canadian-made TV set. By the early 1980s Canadian-made electric small appliances may be a thing of the past.
What has happened in the electrical industry has been going on in virtually every other sector of manufacturing in our country, whether it be footwear, clothing, furniture, textiles, shipbuilding or whatever else. In more recent times that good old standby in Canada, our natural resource industries, have also fallen upon bad times.
For years the New Democratic Party and the CCF before it has warned successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, that we could not permit the uncontrolled extraction of our raw and natural resources for export to other countries for processing into finished goods and then have them shipped back for sale here. That has been government policy in Canada since 1949 and it is not only dumb economics, it is irresponsible government in the extreme. We have not only been giving away our valuable resources, but in the process we have been giving away our hope of being able to finance our own way as a technologically-advanced industrial nation.
In terms of the present economic crisis, probably the most significant problem of all is the large degree of foreign ownership of our industries. According to the most recent figures I have, foreign companies owned 57 per cent of all manufacturing in Canada. They also owned 99 per cent of the rubber industry, 96 per cent of automobiles and parts, 85 per cent of chemicals, 71 per cent of electrical goods, 63 per cent of agricultural equipment and 57 per cent of transportation equipment.
Until recently our major concern over this degree of foreign ownership has been that we were a branch plant economy. Today we are not even that. Today we are rapidly becoming a warehouse economy with an increasing number of domestic consumer goods being supplied by imports from other coun- * tries. These are manufactured in the main by the same corporations that once produced them in Canada and now find it more profitable to operate elsewhere.
Employment Tax Credit Act
In the midst of all this, both the Liberals and Tories want us to believe that owing to current international conditions there is little governments can do about unemployment. Both I and the New Democratic Party do not agree with that position. If this government were serious about doing something concrete about unemployment and if they were seriously committed toward a goal of full employment in Canada, then steps should be taken now to reduce unemployment. In the short run the government could give a clear indication that it is serious by stating it has no intention of continuing to cut back on grants to job placement agencies funded under the Outreach programs. The success of these programs has clearly been demonstrated in the past yet the government has chosen to do away with many of them.
A case in point is the citizens action group, a Hamilton, Ontario placement organization that specialized in finding employment for hard-to-employ people. Those people were mainly young people or referrals from correctional institutions and former psychiatric patients. Yet this group has recently been told that its grant of $118,000 a year would be withdrawn because, it was said, the Outreach program under which it was funded was for temporary pilot projects. Now that it has shown what can be achieved with hard-to-employ clients, its function is to be taken over by Manpower.
What this government should be doing instead of playing around with measures now before us is reinstating programs such as Outreach that we know do create jobs. We need programs to provide incentives to get us into apprenticeship training to address the shortage of skilled workers in Canada. If members opposite were really serious, they would make better use of taxpayers' dollars by employing them in productive government spending in the food, housing, energy and transportation sectors, using the money available for the development of processing industries based on Canadian resources and the development of manufacturing industries to produce goods we now import.
If this government were really serious about unemployment they would show their commitment by bringing in a full employment act which would provide for annual forecasting of employment targets, together with a timetable for implementation. These are the kinds of things which would show Canadians the government is serious about fixing the mess which the administration has itself created. Playing around with measures like those contained in this bill simply cements the view that this government is not serious about doing anything to alleviate unemployment. I think it is about time they started.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate today I feel I should like to express a few thoughts concerning the bill before us and also the general condition in which we find the economy today. I feel it is most unfortunate that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) should have chosen to deny Parliament an early opportunity to

April 30, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
debate a budget in the normal course of our affairs ana, above all, that he should have failed to produce a budget which, hopefully, might do something meaningful to correct the present economic situation.
The month of April has almost run out. If I were to make any comment to my constituents or to the Canadian public generally it would relate to the unbelievable air of unreality which seems to permeate this House, in particular the government side. Mr. Speaker, I know this has concerned you in other Parliaments in other times, but what I find so hard to reconcile in my mind is that we as a nation, a great nation, great in tradition, in resources, in agricultural potential, in manufacturing, led by a government which is responsible to Parliament, should be so oblivious, apparently, to the crisis ; which is coming.
I find it shocking that the government of the day is showing such indifference. I say this because there is absolutely no doubt where our present policies are leading this nation-to disaster. There is no alternative. If we are lucky enough that it does not strike in 1980, I can guarantee, as any knowledgeable economist in this country will guarantee, that the disaster of which I speak will strike, if not in 1981 or 1982, certainly by 1984. However, if we are to avert the disaster I refer to and if we are going to try at least to lessen its impact, it is time that the government of the day became realistic and started to make some of the hard decisions which have to be made in order to bring back responsible fiscal and monetary management to Canada.
I have felt that in the December 11 budget brought in by my colleague and deskmate, the then minister of finance, at least a start had been made, but only a start. At least, for example, we had identified a course which, if followed, would have narrowed the deficit in this country by approximately half of what it otherwise would have been if trends had been left to follow their own course.
Not only had we taken those steps, but we also had the courage to show the Canadian public, for the first time, where the fiscal course in Canada was headed, not just for the immediate, one year perspective, but for five years down the road. Hon. members can imagine my great concern to have spent April in this House and not to have had one tittle of evidence offered from the government benches as to how they see our economy evolving in the 1980-81 down to 1984 scenario. Instead, what we have had furnished to us is a so-called economic statement carefully tucked into a throne speech debate so that it itself could not be debated, and it indicated, for example, that the deficit since December, when the budget of my colleague was introduced, is now anticipated to be $3.7 billion greater. The budgetary deficit is running at over $14 billion, and there was only the most casual comment that somehow or other they hope expenditures and financial requirements might be narrowed by $1 billion between now and the time that a budget is finally introduced.
Hon. members can understand my concern. I think the Canadian public deserves better. For example, there must not be another Parliament, certainly in the British Commonwealth, that is faced with a situation where the last completely debated and passed budget was April 1978, two years ago. That was when we last had a proper accounting and a fully debated budget in this House.
When I say that, hon. members can imagine why 1 rise to speak now on Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act. Surely if I wanted anything to highlight how totally out of context the House has become, it is simply to emphasize that here today we are debating, at the government's request, a two-clause bill dealing with an employment tax credit matter which, as we know, was introduced by the previous government, certainly at least partially in the form we have it, and yet we are left without a proper budgetary presentation for us to deal with.
Let me put it this way. When we are told that our deficit is now over $14 billion, over $3 billion higher than we anticipated last December, that in turn means that the government in effect is admitting that, on a spending program of $60 billion, it cannot pay for $14 billion of what it intends to spend. As hon. members can see, what that really means is that over 25 per cent of the government's revenue is being, so to speak, overspent in the form of expenditures that the government does not expect it can cover.
Think of it; here we have a government which says, in effect, that the revenue it anticipates will be something under $46 billion. Its expenditures will be over $60 billion, leaving a shortfall of $14 billion. It does not take much arithmetic to figure out that that is nearly a 30 per cent overrun on the revenue coming into Ottawa.
The reason I mention this is that we grappled with these figures. If those in the House care to do so, they can pull out a release that we put out through the Treasury Board on January 22. In vivid terms that release showed where the course of the economy would take us if the Crosbie budget was not passed, and that is exactly what we now have before us. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members to take a look at that release because it can be seen year by year how big the deficit will be, how high expenditure levels will be and how big the net debt will become without provisions such as those the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) proposed on December 11.
What I find so alarming is that on April 30 we are here debating Bill C-19, yet we still have no budgetary presentation to give us the hope that somehow the scenario we brought out on January 22 will not be reality.
I would be less than candid if I did not tell the House that one of my greatest anxieties is to witness what is now happening in the office of the Minister of Finance and in the office of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). There is absolutely no doubt that we have a Minister of Finance who is entirely in the hands of his bureaucracy. He is not running his department. He is being told by the Michael Pitfields and the
April 30, 1980

other bureaucrats who have called the shots so wrongly in this country for so many years, exactly what he is expected to follow as far as economic policy is concerned, and he is very dutifully doing what he is told. What a shocking thing! In Canada's day of economic need we have a Minister of Finance who is not a servant of the public but simply a servant of public servants.
One might shift and say, "Well, the saviour is obviously going to be the President of the Treasury Board, because under the Financial Administration Act his mandate is very clear." Contrary to the public impression, it is the President of the Treasury Board who has the responsibility to restrain and contain expenditures as far as government is concerned. So you might turn to him because he is the man who will somehow right the ship and ensure that these rising deficits to which I referred will not materialize.
Flere again I am disappointed with some of the comments which the President of the Treasury Board has made. For example, he stated that it is not so much a question of containing expenditures but rather of increasing the revenue which we need to somehow bring the deficit down in Canada. I say that should sound an alarm with everybody in the House because essentially it is saying: do not turn to government to trim costs, do not lessen government expenditure; that is not necessarily the answer; the answer lies with the already overtaxed public which should be paying more in the form of taxation. That is what is coming down the pipe.
As I have indicated earlier, a disaster is coming. I should also like to indicate that what we are going to be asked to pass at a later date is a substantial corporate and personal income tax increase. To the degree that the government calls upon Canadians to pay more in income and other tax, it is going to be evidence of their failure to control their own expenditures. It is as simple as that.
I would invite all hon. members to read the little booklet written by the President of the Treasury Board entitled "Fis-calamity-How to survive Canada's tax chaos". The President of the Treasury Board wrote this in 1974 when, presumably, other influences were brought to bear on him. 1 ask hon. members to pay attention to the following introduction in the book, which reads;
This book is dedicated to all Canadians who share my belief that Canada, with its beauty, its resources, its people, and its legal-political heritage, could be a country of unequalled opportunity and happiness, were it not for too much taxation, too strong a bureaucracy, too much government, too much welfare, too many politicians, and too few statesmen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Think of it, Mr. Speaker. Here we have a President of the Treasury Board who is given, under an act of this Parliament, the responsibility to handle the bureaucracy, to handle expenditures and certainly to have influence on taxation, having written what I have just quoted in 1974, and who now indicates to the press and in the House that he believes expenditures are not the real problem, that the question is to get more revenue.
Employment Tax Credit Act
What has changed from 1974 to 1980? I can tell you that one thing has changed. When the then Mr. Donald J. Johnston wrote the book to which I am referring, total federal government spending was approximately $20 billion. He might not have known about the statement made by the Minister of Finance-but he has to accept some responsibility for a statement which has been given to the House-in which the House was told that in the current year our spending was going up to $60 billion, triple what Mr. Johnston referred to in 1974 as something that was "fiscalamity". What has changed? Would he not agree that if it were Fiscalamity back in 1974, it is triple fiscalamity now because it has tripled in size?
In 1974, sure, we had deficit problems, but we certainly had no deficit problem compared to the $14 billion budgetary deficit which we are told to expect this year. The deficit this year is 70 per cent of the total federal government spending in 1973-74, the very year Mr. Johnston wrote his book trying to alert the Canadian public to the fiscalamity into which he thought we were heading.
At a later date I intend to go at length into more of the comments made by Mr. Johnston in his book because I think there is a strange transformation which has taken place; a person who was so concerned and alarmed at that time has now become party to putting in place the very expenditure levels and deficit levels that only a few years ago he felt would lead us to fiscalamity, as he called it.
How best can we relate this? I often feel that we sit here in Parliament oblivious of reality, almost as if we were aboard a ship at sea. We know where the shoals are, we see them coming, but for some reason nobody seems to want to do anything about them. I was very surprised to learn in the last year how the previous government-I say "previous government" only in a sense; the government which existed before the Clark government, which has been resurrected in the form of the present government-


An hon. Member:: Voted in by the people of Canada; do not forget that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was very surprised to learn how their decision making processes had been developed while they had been governing this country from reading what had happened at their cabinet meetings and who said what on various things. I only wish the Canadian public could be exposed to the type of discussions which took place at those cabinet meetings so that they could judge the calibre of the people conducting the affairs of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You should release yours.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons we felt that freedom of information legislation was long overdue in this country. It is time that some of these so-called governmental secrets were released and the Canadian public were allowed to see the ineptitude of this government in former years in conducting the affairs of Canada.
1 say this because what I found most startling when, for example, we come to the question of restraint was to learn that

April 30, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
under the previous government there was no concept of restraint in the sense that you and I, Mr. Speaker, understand it. There was no concept of the government spending less and saving money, that it had the duty and the obligation to the Canadian people to spend less and save. What we were introduced to, or certainly what I was introduced to for the first time, was the concept which the former government used to call macroeconomic thinking. The macroeconomic thinking was simply to have some bureaucrat decide that the proper spending level in Canada was $50 billion or $55 billion or $60 billion, and everything else fell out of that. In short, while we were in power no doubt people could have hinted that the $60 billion spending level for the fiscal year 1980-81 was a level that could and should have been attained. But what absolutely startled me was when somebody at the bureaucratic level said the previous government would have accepted the $60 billion level for macroeconomic reasons. It was not suggested that the economy somehow or other needed it, but basically because the economy needed that type of federal government spending to continue what they like to refer to as the "fine tuning".
What I think is exceedingly important that we do in Committee of the Whole and in other committees of this House is to pin this government down as to where it got the $60 billion and some odd spending level it is telling us we may have to live with in 1980-81. My guess is that it was simply a figure handed to the Minister of Finance by a bureaucrat on the basis that he thought it was a nice round figure, and that as far as the economic model was concerned it was roughly what the Canadian government should be spending.
The reason this is so significant as far as Treasury Board is concerned is that there were, there are and there will be existing savings that can be made, some of which we made and some we intended to make. However, we were told that from the bureaucratic approach these savings would be counterproductive if we instituted them. In short, it is deemed that Canada should have a spending level of $60 billion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) on a point of order.


Mr. Evans:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 hate to interrupt the eloquence of the hon. member opposite, but I have a very difficult time seeing the relevance of his comments to the employment tax credit bill that is before this House. 1 wish you would rule on that matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has exercised a certain amount of latitude but, if I may say so, he has not been the only one to do so in this debate. I would hope, however, that the hon. member would bear in mind the point made and perhaps address his remarks to the bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, and I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House at the time, I wanted to make a few of these preliminary comments, and they are only preliminary, because I felt that we in this House
are facing such an odd scenario, being asked to debate a two-clause bill dealing with employment tax credit matters without having had the advantage of a budget and without knowing the governments fiscal position. 1 was indicating the type of approach this government in its previous incarnation followed in arriving at spending levels in this country and from which flew the various legislative matters we were asked to consider. At a later time I will comment more fully on some of the fiscal matters which 1 feel most of us are concerned about, but about which unfortunately we are not sufficiently alarmed.
Dealing more specifically with the question of unemployment, let us not forget that when the Prime Minister took power unemployment in this country was 4.5 per cent and there were some 358,000 Canadians out looking for work at the time. Unemployment is now hovering around 7.4 per cent, which means there are over 500,000 more Canadians unemployed today than in 1968 when the Prime Minister first took power in this country.
Let me make a side comment. I would ask those who say that present deficits are needed and that big government spending is essential-because unemployment is going to go up still higher without them-how come unemployment has in fact gone up so dramatically, notwithstanding those deficits that have been loaded on Canadians year by year?
The Trudeau response has been to create a hodge-podge of programs. Unemployment was treated as a short-term phenomenon that could be treated with temporary measures such as the Local Initiatives Program and the Canada Works program.
Having regard to both LIP and the Canada Works program, I would invite hon. members, especially those on the government side, to read what the President of the Treasury Board had to say about them. What he said is most informative. In due course we will have to find out from that minister whether he still holds those views.
Those programs did not alleviate our long-term unemployment problems. They only succeeded in discouraging mobility in the labour force and creating a dependence on government support programs. Young people between the ages of 15 and 24 have suffered most from the Liberal government's ineptitude.


An hon. Member:: You are not supposed to be working at 15; your are supposed to be in school.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What an interesting comment from a government supporter-"you are not supposed to work".


An hon. Member:: "At 15", he said.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: At 15. Let me help the hon. member understand. Statistics happen to be prepared by Statistics Canada for that age bracket of 15 to 24, and whether hon. members on the government side like it or not, there are presumably some people below 16 years of age who would like to get to work in this country, even if the Prime Minister cannot deliver it.
April 30, 1980

Young people between the ages of 15 and 24, as I have said, have suffered the most from the Liberal government's ineptitude. In 1967 the unemployment rate for this group was 6.5 per cent. Unemployment for young people has now soared to 13 per cent.
Bill C-19 gives no indication that it recognizes the special problems of young people. For that matter, it offers no special help for other groups that have been hit hard by unemployment, including women, native people and the handicapped. While in 1979 unemployment among men was 6.6 per cent, the unemployment for women was 8.8 per cent.
I gave some of that background because I thought it would be wise today to contrast what the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has said, both to the press and in this Elouse, concerning the matters that are before us and which are partly touched on in Bill C-19, with what I suggest a much more effective minister of employment and immigration said in this House on December 13, the very day the previous government was brought down.
An effective minister of employment and immigration, Mr. Atkey, recognized that the young are among the hardest hit by unemployment. He said, and I emphasize this again to those backbenchers who had a hand in that decision on December 13:
Youth suffer much more than their fair share of existing unemployment. For example, in November of this year-
He is referring to 1979.
-while youth made up about a quarter of the labour force, they also accounted for almost half of the total unemployment figure.
Mr. Atkey also recognized how crucial it was to find jobs for young people, since they are so easily discouraged. He recognized that the problem was not just economic but that there was a social and human element involved. When young people are unable for a long period of time to take an active place in society, their values and their attitudes about themselves and society are profoundly affected.
The then minister of employment and immigration went on to say:
Our concern stems from recognition of the importance that Finding and keeping meaningful jobs has for the self-esteem and future labour market experience of young people.
There is substantial evidence to indicate that the early labour market experience of individuals has a significant bearing on their later employment and income record. The youth of the "baby boom" generation now makes up over a quarter of the labour force. Over the next few years this group will move rapidly into the mainstream of adult workers. For example, by 1985, it is expected that youth will make up only 23 per cent of the labour force, compared with more than 26 per cent in 1980. Under these circumstances, it is particularly important that young people acquire the skills and attitudes now that they will need to lead satisfying and productive working lives as adults. Above all, this government does not want to create another generation of UI and welfare recipients. Our young people are capable of far more, especially in a nation so well endowed with natural resources and human capital.
Mr. Atkey continued:
Although solid work experience in real jobs is important to all youth, the truly vital factor, especially for young people who have not had the advantages of
Employment Tax Credit Act
higher education or formal skill training, is to land that First job. This can be critical to his or her ultimate success because it provides that all-important starting point. And, in that connection, I firmly believe that an authentic job in the private sector is going to be more credible to potential employers than a job on a government make-work project, about which many employers tend to be skeptical, if not downright negative.
Mr. Atkey went on to state:
What we are looking for here is to help those young people who are at a real disadvantage and who most need the help. We do not want to repeat some of the experiences under programs such as Opportunities for Youth and the Local Initiatives Program where in many cases elite groups or middle and upper class youth were able "to do their own thing" at the expense of the public purse with little lasting benefit to the country or the community. By involving tried and true organizations which have already demonstrated their ability to direct services to those who need them most, we feel there will be less emphasis on innovation for its own sake and a much better opportunity to undertake projects of lasting benefit to the community which will provide relevant work experience for youth.
Mr. Atkey went on to propose specific programs to help young people find jobs. This is what we have yet to hear about from the present Minister of Employment and Immigration who is, presumably, concerned with other things of a more personal nature. For example, this minister has not told us what Mr. Atkey said on the very day that the previous government was defeated. Mr. Atkey said:
We will be establishing a youth employment secretariat to provide the direction that has been lacking in the past. This secretariat will monitor existing programs and co-ordinate them to ensure that duplication is reduced and that they are meeting the real needs of Canadian youth.
As an additional means to ensure that youth employment programs provide the best value for money invested in them, the youth employment secretariat will work to harmonize federal youth employment programs with those of the provinces. One of the first tasks of the secretariat will be to ensure co-ordination of temporary employment programs for the spring and summer of 1980 to accommodate the thousands of young students expected to come onto the labour market at that time.
Bill C-19 says nothing about helping young people find jobs. That is the tragedy of what happened on December 13.
Mr. Atkey's commitment to youth did not exclude a concern about other groups in society that face particular difficulties in the labour market. For instance, he recognized that women have a hard time entering the labour force. In addressing this issue, he said:
The participation of women in the labour force has been rising rapidly and continuously in the post-war period. This trend is expected to continue for some time to come. Although this human resource is one of our strengths as a nation and an economy, for too many years the talents and abilities of Canadian women have not been fully used. One measure of this is to be found in the fact that, although women account for about 39 per cent of our labour force, they also make up about 47 per cent of the unemployed. Moreover, women frequently suffer from job segregation and low wages when they do work.
Such barriers are gradually being removed and my department is embarking upon a major campaign to speed up the process. We are encouraging women to train for all kinds of jobs, including many of which, for too long, have been regarded as male preserves. A good idea of the potential of this exercise can be seen at such projects as Syncrude in Fort McMurray where women in hard hats are an integral part of the work force.
Again, Bill C-19 does not express any concern for the specific problems of women in Canadian society. Nor did Mr. Atkey forget about the special problems encountered by the handicapped and native peoples. On this topic he said:
Those of us who have good fortune and good health too often forget not only the problems, but the employment difficulties of those who are physically or

April 30, 1980
Message from the Senate
mentally handicapped. We cannot, however, continue to shunt occupationally handicapped persons to employment outside the mainstream. The new programs must and will make provision for their employment in meaningful jobs in the private sector.
Mr. Atkey wanted to develop a co-ordinated employment strategy where the government would work in co-operation with the private sector. He said:
First, we intend to help to create an economic and social climate which will enable the private sector to prosper and take the initiatives which will lead to the creation of new permanent jobs. That is what my colleague, the Minister of Finance-
He was referring to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
-has provided for in his budget. It is also an area where my department is taking some supporting initiatives and I will describe those in more detail shortly.
Secondly, we will encourage the private sector to play its full role in employing people whatever their sex, age, ethnic or cultural background. We will be doing this in complete realization of current and future social and demographic changes. Some examples are the increasing participation and rising expectations of women in the labour market, the aging of the baby boom generation, alterations in the family size and structure and the aspirations of native Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.
I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), but first 1 have a matter to bring to the attention of the House.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing
this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-5, to repeal the Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, 1933 and the Supplementary Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, 1935, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May 1 ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to confirm that we will be proceeding with the Bank Act tomorrow, and if he could indicate what we will proceed with on Friday.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm that we will be dealing with the Bank Act, Bill C-6, on Thursday. On Friday we will deal with the bill concerning the transportation of hazardous goods; I shall have to check the order paper but I think it is Bill C-18. It is my understanding that we will proceed with that on Friday. If there are any changes the President of the Privy Council will announce them tomorrow in the usual way during routine proceedings at two o'clock.
[Translation\


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 1, 1980