1980-06-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and I hope the opposition side will give this matter serious attention.
In view of the fact that since January 1, 1976, 13,500 senior citizens have been illegally denied unemployment insurance benefits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That this House direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to immediately bring forward legislation which will overcome the government's previous insensitivity and provide a mechanism that will allow these senior citizens to receive the benefits that they have been owed since 1976.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE ENERGY-PRICING AGREEMENT-CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to place before this House a matter of urgent and pressing concern.
Whereas the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has failed in his attempts to negotiate an energy-pricing agreement with the producing provinces, and whereas the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has given up on new negotiations and asked that a pricing agreement be now negotiated by the first ministers, and whereas the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has, in a speech to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, made inflammatory remarks which have seriously damaged harmony and accord between provinces and the federal government, I move, seconded by the Alberta caucus and by all concerned Canadians:
That the Prime Minister remove the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from the portfolio he now holds, which he neither understands nor appreciates, and that he be replaced by a new minister with some grasp of this important and sensitive subject.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion which, given its importance at this time, I hope will gain unanimous approval of the House. There has been some discussion on both sides to achieve this end.
Considering the national importance of achieving constitutional change and a renewal of Canadian federalism at an early date, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the House urges the first ministers' conference meeting on June 9 to set, as an outside date for the achievement of a new Canadian constitution, July I, 1981.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Joe said no.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous support of the House on a matter which affects every citizen of Canada who values our history and heritage.
Inasmuch as the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage Society, a self-financed group with some 2,000 members in the Okana-

June 5, 1980
gan Valley, is dedicated to the preservation of a unique 56-mile abandoned section of the Carmi subdivision of the CPR which was immortalized in the filming of the Pierre Berton inspired movie "The Impossible Dream", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That this House urge the responsible authority in the CPR to recognize the worthy purpose of the aforementioned society by declaring a moratorium on track removal of one year's duration in order that the terms of preservation may be established.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The NDP passed a resolution in 1977 which states that the party would not solicit or accept funds from any sources other than individuals, labour unions, co-operatives, small businesses and recognized non-profit organizations. George Johnston of the British Columbia Federation of Labour said:
Our role is in opposition to corporate interests and there is no way we can maintain our integrity while accepting donations.
Robin Sears, chief agent for the NDP, reported to the Chief Electoral Officer that in 1978 the New Democratic Party received more than $172,000 from private corporations, including contributions from such small businesses as Holiday Inn, Canadian Tire and Dominion Securities.


An hon. Member:: Canadian Tire?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: In view of these facts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House call upon the NDP to return immediately to these private corporations this money, with interest, and to write an open letter of apology for misleading the Canadian people, in order to ensure the future integrity of the party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Chenier:: The NDP said "No".


REQUEST HOUSE CONGRATULATE GORDIE HOWE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an important motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that hockey is the national sport of our country and that yesterday one of the greatest hockey players of all limes, Mr. Gordie Howe, decided to retire, considering that this great athlete from Saskatchewan has been the idol of hundreds of thousands of young Canadian athletes over three decades; and considering that Mr. Gordie Howe has been a credit to his province and his country throughout his long career, more especially in international games, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre):
That this House pay tribute and warmly congratulate Mr. Gordie Howe, one of the greatest hockey players of all times, for his exceptional contribution to our national sport over 32 years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre):
That this House pay tribute and warmly congratulate Mr. Gordie Howe, one of the greatest hockey players of all times, for his exceptional contribution to our national sport over 32 years.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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.
In view of the fact the United Nations Human Rights Committee has received communications made on behalf of a number of inmates that Canada has breached article 1 5 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, in denying early release to prisoners and parolees with street time served on parole prior to October 15, 1977, and that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) stated that "should any member of Parliament be
June 5, 1980

willing to raise the question in the House under Standing Order 43, the government would have no objection to debating the issue", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), and not opposed by the government House leader:
That the subject matter of the communications pending before the United Nations Human Rights Committee be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for a recommendation as to the appropriate response to these communications.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The CRTC has an established precedent of not requiring further public hearings for licence applicants who have been granted a provisional licence.
In view of the case of Family Radio of Vancouver, British Columbia, the quasi-judicial body has not only required an appearance before two further public hearings, but has even permitted a negative intervention after the granting of provisional licence, a break with its own operating policy. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the CRTC be called before the Standing Committee on Culture and Communications to explain this action which has jeopardized the objectivity of its quasi-judicial status, and to see whether the commission is indeed in breach of the Broadcasting Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: I accept that applause on my side of the House, Madam Speaker, as being an indication that my colleagues hope my forty-first year, which begins today, will be more totally satisfying than my fortieth year was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have a question for the Prime Minister, but before posing it let me take the opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the Prime Minister for starting the practice of consultation with leaders of other federal parties prior to a federal-provincial constitutional meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: One matter that was not discussed specifically in the conversations between the Prime Minister and myself yesterday was the possibility of a federal referendum. 1 raise the question now because there have been references to such device made by the hon. member for Labelle speaking, I believe, in his capacity as chairman of the Quebec Liberal caucus.
1 wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate to the House if the government is now considering legislation that would empower a national referendum.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to begin my reply by wishing the right hon. member many happy returns of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as our meeting yesterday is concerned, I am very happy it took place. I hope, indeed, that the practice will continue. The Leader of the Opposition was good enough to consult me on some matters when I was in his seat, and I am very happy to continue that practice.
In so far as his question is concerned, I am sorry we did not discuss it yesterday, because I would have been happy to have the views of the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: He asked for your view.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that. The view of the government is that this matter is not being considered by the government at this time, but the House will remember that we had a referendum bill which would have been supported, with some modification, by the opposition party a couple of years ago. I am not saying the matter is discarded forever, but I am saying we are not considering such a move at this time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would take the opportunity to confirm publicly his interest, which we discussed yesterday, in working with other parties in the House of Commons to promote an appropriate reference for a resolution that would allow this whole federal Parliament to discuss questions relating to the renewal of Canadian federalism and the development of constitutional change.

June 5, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I would be very interested in having a resolution which all parties in this House could support and which would bring us somewhat closer to the moment when we could have a truly Canadian constitution satisfying all parts of the country.
1 am not in a position yet, not having met the premiers, to say whether this should be in the form of a resolution or any other form of motion or debate. I have taken, as a position, that before meeting the premiers-I told the leaders of the opposition parties this yesterday-I would not want to solidify my position in any direction because 1 want to hear their views. But certainly 1 would hope that anything which is discussed on Monday with the premiers would not preclude- on the contrary-that we could come to the House of Commons for some, hopefully, universal support for a course to be determined.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder if the Prime Minister would indicate his agreement with my view that, barring some extraordinary position of the premiers, it would be useful for this Parliament to have the opportunity to debate those questions before we rise for the summer recess.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, at the present time that is my view. Subject to anything which might arise in the meeting with the premiers, and subject to the views of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, I would hope that before we recess for the summer we can debate this matter. 1 would go further and hope that we can take some action, but of course that will depend on what the premiers are prepared to consider and to say on Monday.
As far as we on this side are concerned, we see the matter as a very urgent one and we would like to see more than debate; we would like to arrive at a resolution of at least some of the constitutional matters.


FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING-PROPOSALS FROM PROVINCES
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any specific proposals from the provinces in preparation for the June 9 first ministers' meeting? Has he, on behalf of the federal government, given specific proposals to the province, or has the communication to date been primarily concentrated in the letters which were exchanged between the Prime Minister and the premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, neither the Minister of Justice nor myself have received any concrete proposals from the provinces beyond the verbal exchanges which took place when the Minister of Justice met with them. I have had no further communications from the provinces beyond the letter which was tabled in the House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, in view of the interest across the country and, of course, resident here in the House on participation in constitutional talks, could the Prime Minister indicate whether after the meeting of June 9 he would be willing to make a report to the House, either of motions or by whatever mechanism he finds suitable, to report on the progress of that meeting, rather than having to rely on eliciting the information only through question period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 would be happy to make a statement on motions on the results of the June 9 meeting, shall we say in the several days following that meeting. Of course, if it appears that the kind of debate referred to by the Leader of the Opposition is to come reasonably soon after June 9, it might be convenient to wait for that debate before I make any statement. Assuming we are given a couple of days to decide on that latter matter, if it appears that debate is not reasonably imminent then 1 will be happy to make a statement on motions.


FEDERAL POSITION ON CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE-DATE FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF NEW CONSTITUTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. According to the chairman of the Quebec caucus of the Liberal party, as he is quoted in today's press, Quebec MPs of the Liberal party plan to spend the summer-to use his words-"to sell" the federal position on constitutional change.
Considering that the only position the Prime Minister has taken so far which seems to be eminently sensible, going into a meeting of the first ministers, is a commitment to a charter of rights, would the Prime Minister tell the House if anything other than persuading Quebeckers as to the desirability of a charter of rights lies behind that statement by the chairman of the caucus, or is something else intended?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I attended part of that caucus meeting yesterday. There are several subjects on which the caucus would like to see the Canadian Constitution improved and federalism renewed. The hon. member mentions a charter of fundamental rights. The caucus seemed very interested, also, in entrenching linguistic rights. These were opinions which were expressed: there was no resolution, to my knowledge, of the caucus.
The significance of the whole debate, as far as I was able to perceive it, is that our Quebec members, having participated very valiantly in the recent referendum in Quebec, are anxious to see that this government and this Parliament live up to the undertaking which we all made in our province, that there would be renewed federalism and that it would come quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, following the conversation that I had with the Prime Minister yesterday on this particular matter of constitutional change, 1 should like to ask if he is prepared at least to indicate the desirability-keeping in mind that he has to obtain agreement from the premiers when they
June 5, 1980

meet-of providing a forum in the constitutional change process for the direct presentation of views by the people of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and the native peoples, as opposed to working simply and exclusively through the federal government?
tTranslation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party will undoubtedly recall that in February 1979 we, the federal government, had put on the agenda of the constitutional conference an item along the lines the hon. member referred to, that is, we had suggested that Indian and Inuit spokesmen present briefs directly to the constitutional assembly. On that latter point we do not differ.
As to the participation of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, I repeat what I said about the position 1 took last week and the week before. Those, are in a sense, different levels of government. 1 remind the House that many times we receive representations from mayors and municipalities, which also represent another level of government, and that those representatives also wanted to take part in the constitutional talks.
With regard to those two categories-other levels of government-1 shall be very happy to raise the matter with the premiers. I do not promise that it will be done on Monday. I remind the House that the matter of broadening the debate through increased participation was discussed between the leader of the New Democratic Party and myself and that 1 even suggested to him that at one point we might be moving toward such a solution. But I do not think that at this stage 1 must invite representatives of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to attend this conference, unless the premiers and 1 decide to broaden the participation.


John Edward Broadbent: A further supplementary question. 1 certainly hope, Madam Speaker, that the Prime Minister is successful in what I take to be his undertaking to try to get a commitment from the premiers to widen participation.
My final question to the Prime Minister is this. Considering the need for speedy constitutional change, does he consider that as an outside date it would be desirable for us, as a Parliament, to agree that we should have a new constitution established in Canada by July 1, 1981?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party probably noticed that this side of the House gave support to his earlier motion to that effect. I would only want to modify it. While 1 would first welcome that rapid date-that deadline set by the New Democratic Party-and say that we are indeed grateful that at least our two parties are of the view it is that urgent, all 1 would add-I told the hon. Leader of the Opposition this yesterday in our talks-is that if we can do it sooner, in total or in part, that would be our preference. We on this side feel there is a great deal of urgency for a variety of reasons.
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


EARTH STATION ON GROUNDS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. He will know that, despite his blandishments on Tuesday, the licence given to the British Columbia government for the earth station located on the lawn of the B.C. legislature does not confer the right to receive American programs from American satellites and that, despite that fact, the British Columbia government is currently receiving signals from American satellites.
Does the minister accept the argument made by the British Columbia government that the earth station on the lawn of their legislature is not covered by federal legislation? If he does not accept that argument, what action does he propose to take?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, on this question 1 should like to point out two things to the hon. member. First of all, as far as the legality or illegality of the earth receiving station is concerned, 1 have asked for a full report and advice from the legal officers of my department.
1 believe. Madam Speaker, that this goes beyond the question of legality or illegality. As far as I am concerned, an undertaking was given to this government by the government of British Columbia-particularly, by its minister responsible for science, universities and communications-to the effect that the satellite would be used exclusively to receive CBC commercial signals. This undertaking has not been followed by that government. In that sense I find it extremely disturbing that a minister of the Crown of a provincial government would put himself in the position of not living up to his word.
1 would like to point out that we have some ten to twelve ongoing possible projects with the B.C. government, in particular with that minister, and I would like to know whether or not this government can count on that minister living up to his word.


Mr. Andre:: Take him into the constitutional talks, too.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister a very direct question. Is he threatening the B.C. government at the present time that if, in the opinion of the Minister of Communications of the federal government, the B.C. government does not live up to what he believes is an undertaking that it made, the federal government will not participate in these other joint agreements with the B.C. government?
Further, on Tuesday the minister went out of his way to studiously avoid giving the assurance to Canadians living in northern, remote and rural areas that prosecutions would not be launched against them because they have set up earth stations to give themselves the same freedom of choice in programming as is freely available to Canadians living in

June 5, 1980
Oral Questions
southern Canada. May 1 also ask the minister whether he is prepared to give that assurance to Canadians in that area now, that Ottawa will not intercede to ensure that that discrimination continues?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, it has always been stated quite clearly that our main concern, or our main area of interest was in earth receiving stations that were used to rebroadcast programs received from satellites. We have always indicated that as far as the domestic use of these satellites for home personal purposes was concerned, it was not a matter of general concern to us.
The hon. member is mixing up two very different questions and is trying to identify or to render equal the two problems involved, one which concerns home receiving satellite stations, and satellite stations which are used to rebroadcast programs. We have always indicated quite clearly that the only earth satellite stations that we are looking at for prosecution purposes at the moment are earth satellite stations that were being used for rebroadcast purposes and that were, at the same time, interfering with other licensed cable operations, or interfering in general with the management of the spectrum.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the House will note that the minister did not answer the question as it related to the B.C. government and whether the minister intended to withdraw from agreements with B.C.
The minister knows full well that in dozens of communities in northern and remote areas, whole communities have banded together to put up earth stations to ensure that the whole of those communities will be able to receive freedom of choice in programming. Will the minister now remove his threat to launch prosecutions against Canadians living in rural and remote areas of Canada where communities have banded together to give themselves that freedom of choice?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is trying to create confrontation where none exists.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I did not threaten to prosecute anyone.


Francis Fox: I have gone out of my way over the past week trying not to build up the matter with the B.C. government into a question of a federal-provincial confrontation.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I did not threaten to prosecute anyone.


Francis Fox: If the hon. member will let me answer, he may learn something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.


An hon. Member:: Listen, Joe Clark.


Francis Fox: 1 fully expect that the minister of communications for the province of British Columbia will want to conform
immediately to the conditions set out in his licence. The licence was issued according to the terms that he requested, and I expect him to live up to those terms.
The hon. member is once again raising the question of possible prosecutions against communities in the north. The hon. member knows full well, because he was in the House this week when he asked the same question, that it is not our intention at the moment-


Charles Joseph Clark: At the moment.


Francis Fox: -to prosecute those communities. We have always indicated quite clearly, Madam Speaker, that it was our intention to await the outcome of the hearings of the CRTC, as was the position of the previous government, on the question of extension of television services to the north. From that point on, the CRTC would consider applications for licences for the north, and we would hope to bring an end to this problem by addressing the root of the problem and not simply by bringing up confrontation as the hon. member suggests.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Don't make threats next time, Francis.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the minister and his department were a party to the Ontario government's recent pollution control order aimed at limiting acid rain-producing emissions from Inco, and in view of the fact that last night the president of Inco Metals announced that his company was unable to meet the provisions of that control order for technical reasons, does the minister give any credence to the statement by the president of Inco and, if not, what steps is he and his department going to be taking, presumably with the Ontario government, to ensure that Inco will reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from its Copper Cliff smelter to 1,950 tons a day by 1983, in accordance with the terms of the control order that I have mentioned?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, 1 think 1 have seen one press report giving information which the hon. member has just given to the House. 1 have not seen a transcript nor have I seen a full account of those remarks. 1 have no reason to believe that the order cannot be met.
June 5, 1980

1 know that there is concern on the part of the company about their ability to do so , but at the present time I do not have any information which would change the view 1 have previously expressed, which is that I believe the company will be able to meet those objectives.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of the Environment. Given that the minister himself and the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario quoted quite extensively from what seemed to be private, confidential studies from the federal Department of the Environment arguing that Inco can, in fact, adhere to the provisions of the control order and, indeed, can go well beyond that in terms of lowering its acid rain producing emissions, will the minister table such studies in this House so that we, as members of Parliament, and the public at large can assess the validity of the statements made by people like the president of Inco, that they cannot adhere to those pollution control standards?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the view that we expressed was that within four or five years we believe that Inco would be able to bring down the level of emissions considerably below those indicated in the first two stages of the control order.
We have announced that we will be prepared to make available the study on which that estimation was based. However, it would have to be done in a way in which certain names and certain aspects of the information, which were given to us on a confidential basis, were removed. But I have already indicated that the substance of the report would be made available to those who wish to see it.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am going to ask it very quietly, so I do not offend him.
The minister no doubt noticed that there has been a dramatic downturn in the sale of North American-built vehicles in Canada, and a dramatic downturn in the sale of Canadian-built vehicles in Canada. When can we expect to see the introduction in Canada of a rebate program similar to the one introduced by the Big Three in the United States, in order to assist not only the workers but the dealers and the consumers in this country?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the rebates mentioned by my hon. friend have been as a result of reaction by the motor vehicle manufacturers in the United States to market conditions there. 1 will certainly be checking with them urgently to see whether they are contemplating similar action here.


An hon. Member:: You said that two weeks ago.
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Certainly, one would want to offer to Canadian consumers opportunities similar to those available in the United States where the market conditions are also similar.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, if 1 understood the minister correctly, he said that he would check into it to see.


An hon. Member:: Two weeks ago he said that.


Ian Deans: 1 am sure the minister is not sufficiently absent-minded not to recall that he said the same thing on May 16. Has the minister checked? What was the answer? And when can we expect to see the rebates?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend has demonstrated that he is the absent-minded one, because his question related to Chrysler Corporation.


Ian Deans: I did not ask the question; the hon. member for Churchill did.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friend says the question was from the hon. member for Churchill. I knew there were a lot of divisions in that party, but I did not realize they were so severe that one member does not take credit for something asked by another one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend may already be planning to launch a leadership campaign of the type he launched unsuccessfully at the provincial level, and which caused him to abandon provincial politics and come to the federal scene. Perhaps the municipal scene will be next for him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We did make inquiries of Chrysler Corporation. Their response was that market conditions at that time had not justified a similar response here. If my hon. friend is in agreement that the market situation here has deteriorated to an equivalent level to that in the United States, I am sure he will be happy to join with me in adding to the force of my representations with respect to all the automotive companies here.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications, responsible as he is for the Canadian Broad-

June 5, 1980
Ora! Questions
casting Corporation. Given the fact that the corporation persists in believing that the construction of a transmitter in Chapleau cannot proceed because winter is not over yet, could the minister inform the corporation that the spring thaw did take place in Chapleau in late April, and could he assure the residents of Chapleau that work is going to resume very shortly? Finally, could the minister tell the House when the CBC television programs will be aired in Chapleau?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know that CBC programming in his area is an issue of utmost concern to him. He told me about it several times in recent weeks. 1 am glad to announce that according to information I received from the CBC, we are in a position today to state that the access road to the transmitter will be opened by June 9 at the latest. The corporation also informed me that, starting June 4, Bell Canada will be able to instal the lines necessary for broadcasting television programs and that CBC expects to start broadcasting TV programs in Chapleau very soon after August 1, 1980.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, perhaps this question and answer will be a little more spontaneous.
A few days ago 1 had a lengthy discussion with several security personnel at a major Canadian airport. They voiced very real concern about standing for prolonged periods of time beside the x-ray machines that examine hand luggage.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport if he is aware of these anxieties by his department's security personnel, what is the minister doing to monitor these perpetually operational x-ray machines, and can he assure his own people and the travelling public that there is absolutely no danger from a build-up of radiation when in the immediate vicinity of these potentially dangerous devices?


Hon. Jean-Lue Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I read of a certain case in the paper having to do with this. My inquiry revealed that it was a case of a particular attendant who had been overzealous about controlling the passengers. I will inquire to see if there are more issues of this kind, and report accordingly.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Will the minister at least instruct his department's security personnel to wear docime-ters, which are required by the military who work in a
radiation environment, in order to detect the slightest leakage or minutest build-up of radiation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will make such an inquiry, Madam Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Hatton):: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the Postmaster General. Could the minister confirm or deny whether or not the Post Office is in the process of introducing a new 35-cent Canadian stamp commemorating the Moscow Olympics? "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question put by the hon. member. The former Conservative government had intended to introduce a new stamp commemorating the Moscow Olympics on July 4, 1980. Since Soviet troops have not withdrawn from Afghanistan yet, it is quite possible that the Post Office will decide very soon to drop the introduction of this stamp.


Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary is this. When this government took the decision on that stamp, the Soviet Union had not yet invaded Afghanistan. As of yesterday, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Otto John Jelinek: They get very nervous and edgy over there when they hear the truth. As of yesterday, the Post Office confirmed that indeed a stamp commemorating the Olympic Games in Moscow is to be introduced on July 4.
My question to the Postmaster General is this. Why, since the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, has not the government taken the necessary action to remove that stamp from production?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the former government did not take the necessary action to withdraw that stamp from production after the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet troops. Further, I can assure members of the House that no final decision has been taken and the hon. member cannot say that the stamp will be issued on July 4. I pointed out to him, in answer to his first question, that a decision would be taken in the coming days.
June 5, 1980


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. The CBC has revealed that in the districts of Halifax, Dartmouth and Sydney over the course of the past two to three years approximately 99 warrants were issued with respect to the seizure of telephone records, including the records of the CBC. In the information forming the basis for those warrants, at least 45 out of the 99 did not contain any basis upon which the warrants should be issued.
Has the Solicitor General examined that matter through the RCM Police? Has he given directions with respect to the policies of the RCM Police which will ensure that they will be more forthcoming as to the basis upon which they apply for these search warrants? Is the McDonald commission being seized of this particular situation, so that a full investigation can be made of the practice of the RCMP in this regard?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have the information which appeared on the CBC television program, but I do not yet have a full report from the RCMP about it. I have examined the operational policy manual which applies to the information required for obtaining a warrant. I am satisfied with the operational policy which is in place, but I am not yet certain whether the policy was complied with in these cases.
The provincial attorneys general have jurisdiction to examine such matters that take place in their own province. Of course, we are prepared to co-operate fully with them. As to the McDonald commission, that independent commission will make its own decision, I am sure, whether to review these matters.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was going to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, but he is not in his place at the present time. Therefore, I will direct it to the Solicitor General.
After this investigation, will he report to the House, not only whether a practice has or has not been established to put forward the basis upon which these applications are made on the information of a sworn statement, but if he finds that is not the case will he institute a policy by which that is required in the case of RCMP activities? Also, will he assure us that this practice is not widespread, that it does not apply also to Chargex or Visa investigations, or involve the general public who are very concerned with respect to their privacy?
Finally, is the Solicitor General in fact considering bringing forward limitations on writs of assistance, which are open-ended writs available now to law enforcement agencies in this country, the undertaking of the previous government being to
Oral Questions
bring forward legislation to do something to regulate that particular search warrant?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, so far as writs of assistance are concerned, there is a moratorium in effect on their issuance. No position paper has yet been taken to cabinet on that question, so it would be premature to indicate what steps the government will be taking except that the moratorium will be continued until some further decision is taken.
On the question of the policy which applies to the issuance of warrants, as I indicated, I spent time this morning reviewing that operational policy and I am satisfied with it. The question I am not certain about yet is whether the policy was complied with in these particular cases. I am looking into that, and I will be prepared to answer questions about it as soon as I am informed about it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Report back.
He *	*


OIL REFINERY TAX-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Both before and during the last election campaign he and his party campaigned against the infamous 18 cents excise tax increase proposal of the Clark government. He said at the time that it was regressive and that it would have a bad effect on the economy.
I understand now that the minister has proposed to Alberta, in negotiations with that province, that there be an oil refinery tax which, I am sure the minister must know, would be just as regressive, or even worse for the consumer. Could the minister confirm that he has proposed such a tax? Could he confirm that it is just as regressive as the previous tax, and even more so? If that is so, why has he done this?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, as I have already indicated, the government has various alternatives in mind regarding a possible oil price increase.
In his question, the hon. member indicates that this is one of the alternatives. After we hopefully reach an agreement with the producing provinces, my hon. colleague can come to any conclusion he pleases him about the agreement.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister has forgotten he promised the consumers of Canada that they would have lower oil prices than those which the Conservatives proposed. It sounds like another broken promise.
Let me ask the minister about one of his other promises. Can the minister tell the House why, during the election campaign, he and his party promised that they would maintain

June 5, 1980
Oral Questions
the compensation fund to offset the cost of imported oil to the Atlantic provinces, and could he tell the House why he no longer feels obliged to keep this promise?


Marc Lalonde: On the first point, Madam Speaker, the government has indeed made a commitment that the cost of our proposals on oil pricing will be lower than it would have been under the Conservative budget. That is a commitment we intend to honour in all respects. As a matter of fact, already this year consumers have been saved about $2.8 billion in additional taxes which the previous government would have had them pay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Short-term pain for long-term gain.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Borrow the money instead.


Marc Lalonde: I note, Madam Speaker, that truth is painful to hear for the Progressive Conservatives. What Can we do?
As for the second part of the hon. member's question, I hope that, in view of his experience in the field of energy, he will avoid spreading the false interpretation inherent in his question.

The question is not that the oil compensation fund would be reduced at the expense of the maritime provinces. As my hon. colleague knows, we have had one price in Canada since 1974 for all of Canada and we have given every guarantee-and we maintain that guarantee-that there will remain in this country a one-price system and that the Atlantic provinces are not going to be in any worse situation than any other part of Canada. That is government policy, that has been government policy since 1974, and it is the one we intend to maintain. So the Atlantic provinces are not going to suffer from the position adopted by this government. They will be in exactly the same position as the rest of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of his efforts with reference to Chrysler in the Windsor area, is he now in a position to go forward with the proposal in connection with the dockyard in St. John's for the installation of a syncrolift, which will cost $21 million and for which there are funds in the estimates this year to go forward, creating 130 new permanent jobs and maintaining the present 330 jobs at that dockyard? When will the minister make a decision on that?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are pursuing this actively. My recollection is that the project as originally proposed was
found to be in a form in which the cost seemed to be above the amounts originally allocated, so it is being actively reviewed to see if we can make a decision which will be satisfactory to the area and the demands on the public purse.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has intimated in Newfoundland that the government might have to scrap the $2.5 million in the estimates for this project for this year, so it can be spent on expanding airport facilities in his district or for some other project like that which might have higher priority.
Could the minister assure me that funds dedicated to economic development projects, no matter in whose district they are-opposition or government-if the scheme is sensible, feasible and economic, as the minister's officials assure me this one is, will be used for that purpose and not devoted to pump-priming or patronage purposes in other districts just because they happen to be government districts? Would he assure me that he will see that they are devoted to the purpose for which they are in the estimates?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I would like to confirm that this government is committed to the balanced development of every part of Canada, including the province of Newfoundland.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General and it is with regard to the deplorable mail conditions in Calgary North. There are approximately 4,000 homes in Calgary North without any type of mail delivery at all. The people there have to drive up to ten miles to get their mail from a letter depot. This amounts to 50,000 barrels of crude oil a year, or $2 million based on the price at which we are buying oil from Mexico.
Can the minister tell this House why he condones this type of waste, and why he will not tell the Post Office immediately to commence mail delivery in these areas in Calgary North, especially since it would only cost $200,000 a year-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that this question is under active discussion between officials of my department and the letter carrier unions. Indeed, there is the suggestion of the establishment of a certain number of extra positions to carry out delivery services. Within the actual budget and the person allocations which we have, we are trying to find ways to improve letter delivery services in Calgary.
June 5, 1980


SETTLEMENT WITH CUPW-COST TO GOVERNMENT
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. It arises from a press release put out by him and the Postmaster General yesterday in which the following is stated:
Mr. Ouellet said the over-all wage and benefits package represents a 10.43 per cent increase in expenditures over the life of the contract.
That is, the CUPW contract settled between the Treasury Board and that union. Unfortunately, this morning the Postmaster General's mind went blank when 1 asked him what was the dollar amount represented by the 10.43 per cent. He suggested that the President of the Treasury Board could give me that figure. Would the President of the Treasury Board give me the figure?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity. 1 also received a press release, issued by the hon. member, and it would appear that his mind went blank when he wrote it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I am surprised that he has the courage to rise from his seat and put a question to me today after issuing such a document, which is a complete distortion of the facts of this settlement. 1 can only suggest that he does not understand how these wage settlements are calculated, or else he had some help with his arithmetic from the opposition House leader.
The specific answer to the hon. gentleman's question, which I gave yesterday, is that the cost of the settlement is $36,068,232 that is inclusive of COLA, cost of living index adjustment and improved fringe benefits, and it is calculated on the base of a straight-time payroll plus COLA, which is $345,829,659.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board is this. Would the President of the Treasury Board indicate why-if, in fact, the extra cost is $36,068,000-Treasury Board's last suggested mandate to the Post Office, certainly when we were in office, shows the maximum cost to be $26,100,000, and that anything over that would require a larger Post Office budget? Where did the $10 million get left on the table during the negotiations, and why?


Donald James Johnston: Once again, Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman was my predecessor in the Treasury Board, and apparently he does not understand his own estimates, because the amount included in the estimates for the settlement was not $26 million.
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: Yesterday, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) rose on a question of privilege concerning certain words used during question period by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). As 1 stated yesterday, hon. members are entirely free to choose the procedure they prefer in this House, as long as they abide by the rules, whether they proceed under Standing Order 43, by asking oral questions or by using any other procedure. 1 would add that, of course, only the Chair can determine whether a motion is in order and whether the procedure used in the House is appropriate.
As for the question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West, I must say that this does not constitute a question of privilege, but rather a question of order and decorum. Standing Order 12 stipulates that it is the duty of the Speaker to preserve order and decorum in the House. This is why I reserved the right to examine the official report to determine whether the hon. Postmaster General had indeed used the words suggested by some members in this House. 1 have therefore checked what was said, and I must say that 1 have not found anything in the words that he used that might be considered as strictly unparliamentary even though the hon. minister went very far in what is allowed. I should remind him and other members that that type of intervention could quite easily lead to a lack of decorum and order in the House. 1 imagine that this is not exactly the image we want to project of the House of Commons.
However, it is interesting to note that Bourinot, on page 363 of its fourth edition, considers that it is not acceptable to say of another member that he lacks courage. On the other hand, on page 11 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne it is stated that the term "coward" has been judged to be totally parliamentary. Of course, this word was not used by the minister, but some members suggested that he used an equivalent expression.
1 should remind the House that these liberties taken with language occur on both sides of the House. For instance, yesterday, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) also used certain terms which might not be quite acceptable in describing the comments made previously in the House by the hon. Postmaster General. I therefore take the opportunity afforded by this question of privilege to appeal to the spirit of moderation which should obviously prevail in all proceedings of the House.

June 5, 1980
Business of the House


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, before I ask the usual House business question, I want to deal with the matter that arose during the course of the question period, an exchange between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) involving the participation by this Parliament in the process of constitutional renewal. I wonder if, given the willingness expressed to him, as House leader of the opposition, to consult with respect to the framing and the timing, and the process in that debate, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) would also undertake-given the importance of the subject matter, and the importance of this Parliament being involved in this process of consideration of our future-to consult with the Prime Minister so that he and I and my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may sit down rather soon to decide this process?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: The
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has mentioned that Parliament will certainly be consulted but of course 1 intend to consult with the Prime Minister as well, Madam Speaker, and following next Monday's meeting with the provincial premiers we will be able to determine how and when Parliament will be consulted. Therefore, all I can say to my colleague for the time being is that I intend, obviously, to respect the opinion of the right hon. Prime Minister. As to how this will be done we will see later.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I will say, while the Prime Minister is in the House, that we on this side of the House appreciated very much his answer with respect to the matter of consultation with Parliament, and I appreciate, as well, the answer given to us today by the President of the Privy Council, which is the appropriate one, I think, in the circumstances.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if I could go on to some more mundane matters, 1 wonder if the President of the Privy Council could give us some indication of his plans for the rest of this week and into next week, as far as he can see.


Yvon Pinard: I cannot see very far, Madam Speaker, but
starting today, we will try to end the second reading stage of
Bill C-28, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; and 1 understand that there is a good chance that we will also give second reading to Bill C-19, the Employment Tax Credit Act.
I committed myself to my colleagues this morning that if we were to end the second reading stage of Bill C-19 before five o'clock today, tonight we would switch to Bill C-3, the Unemployment Insurance Act amendment. Tomorrow we will deal with the report stages, and hopefully, the third reading stages of Bills C-17, C-27 and C-21, in that order.
[ Translation]
As to the business for next week, I can confirm to my colleagues that Tuesday will be an opposition day and I would like to tell them also that depending on the business the House will get through today and tomorrow, we would also like to be able to complete the Committee of the Whole stage of the bill concerning the employment tax credit; we would also like to get through second reading of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act next week and toward the middle of the week, the second reading of the bill to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81. On the whole, Madam Speaker, this is the work schedule for the rest of this week and next week.


Walter David Baker: There is one other matter. There was another exchange involving, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition the other day with respect to the special committee of the House which we now style as a parliamentary task force dealing with the national trading corporation. The questions and the answers given last week indicated there was some consultation to take place. Has that consultation taken place as yet, and can the government House leader indicate if and when we might be seeing a reference, on the understanding, of course, that our undertaking with respect to no debate on such a reference would apply as it did on the others?


Yvon Pinard: On that understanding, I can confirm to my colleague that consultations have been held successfully and I should be in a position to put a motion in front of the House next week dealing with that parliamentary task force. Before seeking unanimous consent, I will show my colleagues the terms of reference.


Walter David Baker: Thank you.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, first may I confirm the arrangement that has been made among us, namely, that if the terms of reference for parliamentary task force No. 6 are agreed to by the representatives of the parties, we see no need to debate the motion setting up that task force. We would like the committee to get to work.
It is becoming rather obvious that certain legislation some of us thought would be in the Speech from the Throne, or that we would have in and passed by now, is still having to be fought for in cabinet. As the hon. minister will realize, I refer to the legislation respecting veterans, having to do with the widows of
June 5, 1980

disabled veterans, the amount of the basic rate of the disability pension, and the need for some increase in the war veterans allowance, particularly for veterans who are below the age of 65.
Will the President of the Privy Council, with the weight and the clout of his position, get on the side of the Minister of Veterans Affairs in cabinet in an effort to get this legislation before the House very soon? Veterans just do not understand why they have to wait so long for this urgent legislation. 1 hope he is now in a position to tell us that it will be in the House in time for us to pass it before any summer recess.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it all depends on when there will be a summer recess, if any. 1 agree with the hon. member that the subjects he just talked about are very important and are priorities on this side. I witnessed his questions to the hon. minister during the week, and I can assure him that those subject matters are under consideration.
As far as the legislation itself is concerned, surely the hon. member will know that there are many items on the order paper which must be dealt with before the summer recess. I hope we are in a position, with the collaboration and good will of both sides of the House, to get through the backlog and at the same time deal with the very important issues raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary question, may I ask something of the minister. I do so because I would not want my suggestion that this should be done before the summer recess to end in nothing because there is no summer recess. We will work that out. I hope something can be done this month with a view to its being passed certainly before the end of July.
While the government is considering this matter, may 1 point out that certain legislation before the House last December had an effective date of April 1, 1980. 1 hope the government will consider making any legislation for veterans retroactive to that date.


Yvon Pinard: I will take the remarks of my hon. colleague under serious consideration.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk Assistant of the House has laid upon the table the sixth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Order Paper Questions


TWO-PRICE WHEAT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Yvon Pinard: that Bill S-6 (from the Senate), to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


INTERNATIONAL INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS ACT
Yvon Pinard: that Bill S-2, to implement conventions between Canada and Spain, Canada and the Republic of Liberia, Canada and the Republic of Austria, Canada and Italy, Canada and the Republic of Korea, Canada and the Socialist Republic of Roumania and Canada and the Republic of Indonesia and agreements between Canada and Malaysia, Canada and Jamaica and Canada and Barbados and a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 124, 217, 272, 361, 562, 677 and 867.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: Since its inception, what is a list of all grants made under the New Horizons Program to the former constituency of Leeds and the present constituency of Leeds-Grenville and what was the total of all money granted'.1


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: List "A" lists all New Horizons Projects granted in the constituency of Leeds. List "B" lists all New Horizons Projects granted in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and total of all money granted.

June 5, 1980
Project No. 1972-1973
5-00463
5-00661
Order Paper Questions
List of New Horizons' projects granted in the constituency of Leeds. Ontario Name of Organization	$ Amount

The Hi-Neighbours. Smiths Falls	$	1,164
Lyndhurst Senior Citizens, Lyndhurst	8,135
Gananoque Senior Citizens,	Gananoque	3,994
South Crosby Senior Citizens' Friendship Club,
Elgin	7,250
Althorpe and Bolingbroke Community Club,
Maberly	9,819
Total
Project No, 1979-1980
Name of Organization
5-03479	McGuigan Cemetery Committee, Merrickville $ 12,261
3512	Collective	Community	Involvement (Gananoque)
Group, Gananoque	21,010
A3819	Westport Senior Citizens No. 135, Westport	5,6653915	Forfar Social Club, Portland	11,7403994	Pines Citizens Association, Kemptville	1,496A4114	Athenia Senior Citizens Club #712, Athens	2,8434132	Maple View Lodge Auxiliary, Athens	3,448A4174	Lansdowne and District Senior Citizens,Lansdowne	7,0024232	Riverview	Apartments	Senior Citizens,Gananoque	1,3724270	Zone 20 South-Leeds and Grenville, Brockville	1,543A4285	Thousand	Islands Senior Citizens Social	Club,Rockport	2,316$ 30'362	Total	S 70,696
The total of all money granted to the former constituency of Leeds and the present Constituency of Leeds-Grenville is $286,969.00
5-00856	Lansdowne & District Citizens. Lansdowne $ 5,695
5-00907	The Thousand Islands Social Club. Mallorytown	10,6095-00963	Kitley Senior Citizens Club # 677, Toledo	8,5505-01119	Seeleys Bay Senior Citizens' Club, Seeleys Bay	7,4295-01167	The Athenia Senior Citizens'Club, Athens	13,831
Total


[Stage Direction]
5-01584	Senior Citizens Harmony Centre, Smiths Falls $ 12,260
5-01872	Brockville Senior Citizens Inc. #85, Brockville	19,6105-01919	Autumn Action Club, Brockville	2,140
Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was given by the government for research into (a) multiple sclerosis (b) cerebral palsy?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
Si
5-02283	Forget Me Not Club. Smiths Falls	$	7,8132581	Community Senior Citizens, Chaffeys Locks	14,1312589	Hi Neighbours Club. Smith Falls	3,754
Total
5-02465	Beverly Senior Citizens Club 460, Delta	$ 9,6692594	Senior Citizens Forty-Sixers, Smiths Falls	5,4572607	South Crosby Township Senior Citizens	Friendship Club, Elgin	5,2902723	Westport Senior Citizens, Westport	22,5002726	Lyndhurst Senior Citizens U.S.C.O. 390,	Lyndhurst	7,8152863	Seeleys Bay Senior Citizens Club, Seeleys Bay	8,4023095	Friendship Club, Smiths Falls	5,085


[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
Support has been provided (a) for research into multiple sclerosis
1975- 76	$	121
1976-	77
1977-	78	42,7301978-	79	25,7121979-	80	7,485
and (b) for research into cerebral palsy
1975- 76	$ 74,427
1976-	77	37,6851977-	78	52,5191978-	79	113,3951979-	80	150,693
List of New Horizons' projects granted in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville, Ontario Project No.	Name of Organization	$ Amount
1978-1979 5-03225
[Stage Direction]
In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned: Support has been provided (a) for research into multiple sclerosis
Ontario Association of Superannuated Women
Teachers, Athens	$	1,200
Leeds China Painters, Elgin	9,088
Gananoque Senior Citizens Club, Gananoque	5,583
1975-	76
1976-	77
1977-	78
1978-	79
1979-	80
5329,648
372,944
418,186
490,296
549,459

Total
[Stage Direction]
June 5, 1980
[Stage Direction]
and (b) for research into cerebral palsy
1975-76	$23,000
1976-77	6,000
1977-78	-
1978-79	25,850
1979-80	4,250
Mr. Herbert: Has the waterfront site in Charlottetown, P.E.I. been purchased for use by the Department of Veterans Affairs and, if not, has an alternative site been purchased and, if so, in what location and what amount was paid for the site?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: No, the
waterfront site in Charlottetown, P.E.I. has not been purchased for use by the Department of Veterans Affairs, An alternative site (Site 9) located-part of block bounded by Kent, Grafton, University and Prince Streets has been expropriated at an estimated cost of two million to date. Expropriation process allows owners with an interest in land one year from acceptance of offer to commence court proceedings for additional compensation.


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


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1.	(a) 34
(b) (i) 7 (ii) 0.
2.	(a) 33
(b) (i) 7 (ii) 0.
3.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons who are accredited diplomats from the People's Republic of China?
2 What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons serving the People's Republic of China's diplomatic service who are either non-Canadians or Chinese Nationals?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Order Paper Questions
Accredited Diplomats From the People's Republic of China
Name	Title	Date of ArrivalWang Tung	Ambassador	July 8, 1977Liu Min	Counsellor	December 13, 1979Hu Hung-fan	Counsellor	May 25, 1978Xue Na	Counsellor (Commercial) Military, Naval and	March 23, 1979Yi Fei	Air Attache	January 28,1980Kang Chongru	First Secretary	October 26, 1979Liu Ching-hua	First Secretary First Secretary	January 13,1978Liu Tse-pu	(Commercial) Assistant Military,	October 6, 1977Li Dianchang	Naval and Air Attache	August 9, 1979Tsai Tsai-tu	Second Secretary	March 3, 1978Chu Lu-Chang	Second Secretary	June 8, 1978Li Tie-jun	Second Secretary	November 15, 1979Wu Chin-jung	Third Secretary	December 14, 1978Kuo Shang-chiang	Third Secretary	December 2, 1977Lu Congmin	Third Secretary	August 30, 1979An Wenbin	Third Secretary	August 30, 1979Yang Chin-hua	Third Secretary	July 2, 1975Cheng Jianhua	Third Secretary Third Secretary	October 5, 1979Ma Hung-sheng	(Commercial) Third Secretary	January 14, 1977Ku Hsiung-chiang	(Commercial)	January 14, 1977Wei Chen-tung	Attache	August 3, 1978Wang Ching-hua	Attache	July 1, 1973Chao Ying-fu	Attache (Commercial)	November 5, 1976Chen Ting-hsiu	Attache (Commercial)	November 5, 1976Xu Zhizhong	Attache	February 27,1980Zhu Yi	Consul General	January 10, 1980Cheng Wei	Consul	June 26, 1977Sang Sung-sen	Consul	December 24, 1978Su Wen-kuang	Vice-Consul	August 5, 1978
Members of the Staff-Chinese Nationals
Date of Arrival
June 2, 1976 January 13, 1978 April 14, 1978 July 21, 1978 August 3, 1978 October 18, 1978 October 29, 1978 February 19, 1978 September 12, 1979 May 25, 1973 June 11,1975 June 11,1975 March 31, 1976 August 12, 1976 October 6, 1977 December 2, 1977 April 14, 1978 May 25, 1978 September 20, 1979 September 20, 1979 November 15, 1979 November 7, 1974 February 25, 1977 December 24, 1978 August 5, 1979 August 3, 1979 February 4, 1977 June 12, 1977 March 3, 1978
Name
Chen Lung-chiang Tsui Tsien-hua Niu Ken-chun Chang Hsueh-wu Chen Pei-liang Niu Chao-yun Hsieh Hsiao-yen Ni Yueh-nai Chen Youfa Fang Ping-hao Wu Te-chih Pei Fu Yu Hsiao-li Chiang Lai-chun Hsu Chiu-sheng Chang Pen-shan Tao Cheng-shou Sun Kai-lin Li Ming Wang Dingren Shan Weiguo Wei Chieh Chang Yuan-yuan Fan Ming-chun Song Lianjie Ke Yeh-chih Li Yung-an Yang Mei-ching Chane Li-chi
80086-4 2

June 5, 1980
Order Paper Questions SERENA CANADA


Mr. McKnight: ln the past ten years, did the Department of National Health and Welfare receive applications for funding from Serena Canada?
2. Did the department approve funding for the organization and. if so. in each case (a) in what year (b) in what amount (c) for what purpose?


Monique Bégin: 1. Yes
2.
(a) Yes	(b) Amount granted
1970- 71	$ 25,000
1971- 72	40,000
1972-	73	172,0001973-	74	150,0001974-	75	180,0001975-	76	175,000	-f	$5,000	(research)1976-	77	175,000	-t-	9,079	(training)1977-	78	175,0001978-	79	175,0001979-	80	120,000
(c) The grants were awarded for the operation, improvement and extension of services.


Mr. Gass: Has Canada taken initiatives with respect to a new International Convention to control salmon fishing on the high seas in the North Atlantic and, if so, what arc they?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Over the past year Canada has been engaged with the U.S.A. and the EEC in the development of an International Convention to contribute to the conservation of North Atlantic salmon. Canada has transmitted to the EEC and the U.S.A. the draft of a convention which would provide for management and control of intercepting salmon fisheries in North America, Greenland, and in the Northeast Atlantic. A meeting between the three parties was held in Washington, D.C. April 29-30 and a further meeting is planned for some time in June.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, I rise briefly on a point of order in regard to one specific question. As the parliamentary secretary knows, I have a number of questions which have been on the order paper for two and three years that have not been answered, but I should like to refer to just one at this time.
Question No. 15 asks how much government business has been received by Mr. Martin Goldfarb or Goldfarb Consultants Limited. They are the chief public relations surveyors for the Liberal party and also do government work. I do not think the fact that they have Liberal party connections should mean that the government should not answer a legitimate question about government business with this company for a period of over a year or two.
I raised this matter several times before May 22 last year as a point of order. I was assured by the then parliamentary secretary that an answer would be forthcoming soon. Unfortunately no one was able to define the meaning of "soon". I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary who is now holding this position can perhaps enlighten us as to what "soon" really meant. Obviously it meant a long time, but does "soon" now mean perhaps tomorrow or the next day?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, to me "soon" means some time in the future. Whether or not that is in the immediate future or the prolonged future is a question over which I have no immediate control.
I try to get answers to questions. In fact, I think we have answered almost 250 questions to date, so I think the record is quite good. I realize the objections of the hon. member and I will do everything I can to get an answer for him. But I might say that the failure to answer a question does not mean to say that question will not be answered some time in the future. I do not think the hon. member should draw the kind of conclusions he does-


Thomas Charles Cossitt: After two years!


David Michael Collenette: -from the fact that this question has not been answered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc that Bill C-28, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, last evening I rose to make a few remarks about concerns that I have been receiving over the years from people on the west coast dealing with matters pertaining to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I am using the debate on Bill C-28 as an
June 5, 1980

opportunity to put those concerns on the record and to remind the minister of them.
If I may continue, there are just a few other matters I would like to comment on, and one is an apparent attitude that troubles some of us. I realize there are two sides to all of these stories, but sometimes a beef or complaint can arrive on a member's desk when officials of the department do not see eye-to-eye with a constituent, and we have to find the second side of the story. I bring this before the House again because it seems to be an attitude problem that is all too prevalent and that comes to our attention quite often.
We have people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans serving the west coast with great skill. These men are scientists, bio-scientists and engineers who have entered the field of applied bio-sciences. Sometimes it has been my observation, rightly or wrongly, and I will ask the minister to take the opportunity perhaps to correct me, that a degree of possessiveness sometimes reaches these men in respect of their examination of ideas or inventions that come in from the marketplace.
One of these in particular was an application to the department on the west coast for some assistance or research for a herring pump. The Department of Fisheries, so the newspaper article and the individual involved reports, did not take up the suggestion although the performance of this pump had been demonstrated and did need improving. I should like to point out that this was an entrepreneur, an inventor, a mechanic, a man who had applied knowledge and was seeking some assistance from the department in respect of this mechanical aid to the industry.
That pump, that project, did not receive encouragement from officials in Canada on the west coast and it was taken to Los Angeles. That pump is now being manufactured in Los Angeles for a wider market than specified-


An hon. Member:: And exported into Canada.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, and is being exported in Canada. Canadians are buying these pumps now manufactured in the United States for one of the purposes intended. The principle of the pump can be expanded and researched into other areas. It is this type of thing that causes an unnecessary level of anxiety in the community. Perhaps more open-minded attitudes, more discussion and less elitism between the scientist, the mechanic, the entrepreneur and the marketplace would be in order and advisable.
I mentioned yesterday that we are very concerned about the diminishing herring population inside the Gulf of Georgia. I will not repeat all of my remarks on that other than to say that on March 13, 1980, there was an article which appeared in the Vancouver Province that said officials had rapped herring research, and that they had only a mere pittance for studies. If it could be substantiated that they are not getting enough money for research and they want to come before a committee and make a case, I am sure every member from the west coast
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act would help them impress upon the government the need for that research.
However, following that article I did receive input from people who are very interested in the performance of the department on the west coast. One gentleman who keeps me informed on a variety of matters pertaining to the coastguard, fisheries and environmental matters said he just did not agree with the newspaper article, that federal fisheries people say they are short of funds in herring research, and implied that the disaster is the result of penny pinching.
I do not want to see the herring resource on the west coast dry up for any reason, whether it is from overfishing, moving in on the roe harvest, or whether it is for lack of research.
In support of his statement, he goes on to say:
Any half-intelligent commercial fisherman could see what was happening.
That is so, Mr. Speaker. Anybody knowing the waters, knowing the resource and the marine resource on that coast, could see that there was a serious imbalance and a reduction in a very important feed resource for salmon. He points out that even he could see it, as I have just said, and could have given them, as could any fisherman, the advice for a lot less than the $600,000 appropriated. He goes on to say:
Actually the detailed reports prepared by the department over the last eight years are very complete and very informative.
He points out that the department has all the technical know-how and all the facts, but for some reason or other does not properly use the information available to it. He suspects that either there is political interference or union pressure.
I have also noted that newspaper articles coming from the unions on the west coast express the same concern I am expressing here and codify this concern. They also point to the fact that perhaps we should be putting more emphasis on the herring fishery as a food herring industry similar to that which has been developed, and which we admire very much, on the east coast of Canada.
In summary, then, I want to echo the voice and the concern on the west coast that we should stop the herring roe fishery until maintenance of that species of population is assured and protected, and under a sustained management load. I would like to see us stop the harvest of herring for sport fishery use so we can replenish the stocks of herring in all the little bays, ponds and holes in the ocean bottom where they used to be in abundance. The populations are being removed. If there is other scientific evidence that this is for reasons other than man's harvest, or excessive harvest of the herring resource, then let us hear it from the minister.
1 should like to see the problem between Canada and the United States resolved through the international salmon commission. I would like to see that commission start to move on the development of technology that is well known, well established and ready to go in the development, enhancement and implementation of hatcheries closer to the ocean on our river systems on the west coast.
We have already had an announcement from the Thirtieth Parliament that we were to spend some $119 million on

June 5, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
salmonid enhancement. We on the west coast, and I guess everywhere else in Canada, get magnificent bulletins on a regular basis on the salmonid enhancement program. I would like to see some fundamental things take place that will enhance and improve that resource. If we are going to see that, and in fact if we are going to have in place the program announced back in the Thirtieth Parliament, we must have advanced research or advanced knowledge used in the protection of the feeder species upon which that salmon industry relies as the salmon return to the spawning grounds.
The minister would be well advised to take a bit of a holiday on the west coast, perhaps talk to some of the people in the fisheries service who are on the frontiers of that service up the coast, and talk to some of the fishermen during those periods when there is closure on the docks, as I am sure he would find it an amazing experience and would get a real feeling of the importance of this to the community.
The 20-inch limit, which I understand has been postponed or put in limbo for awhile, is of very real concern to a lot of people. We do not understand why the officials would even recommend that sport fishermen who catch a salmon species of less than 20 inches throw it back into the water. That to us is a waste. We would like to know what the scientific analysis or reasoning is behind even thinking that such a method is a sensible way of protecting the chinook species, if that is the reason for that type of threatened legislation.
That about wraps up the comments 1 wanted to make on Bill C-28. I took forward to receiving some answers from the minister in his wrap-up comments.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for participating in this debate is based on the fact that this bill has a very direct bearing on my riding. I have no great expertise in this area, although I have had an opportunity to observe this industry in operation over a long period of time and to draw basic conclusions about how a bill such as the one before the House today affects the people who live and work in my riding. In reference to the previous speaker, my riding is adjacent to his riding and covers more than half the coast of British Columbia. The riding of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) covers the rest of the coast of British Columbia.
Every community in this area is vitally affected by this bill. This particular industry is presently in chaos and many people who live and work along the coast of British Columbia have little confidence in the industry. What little confidence there is is held with uncertainty. The people who invest in and try to earn a living from the industry live from hand to mouth on a daily basis. It is a very desperate situation.
I would like to outline a few areas of particular concern to me. The major area is corporate concentration, which I see taking place right now. This particular legislation, in a very small way, according to my interpretations, will foster corporate concentration. Another area of concern to me is management of the industry.
First, 1 would like to discuss corporate concentration. Historically, the coast of British Columbia has had as its major industries fisheries and forestry. Up and down the coast for some 350 miles of my riding, there were once numerous small communities which thrived on logging and the catching and processing of fish. Then came the development of large fishing companies such as B.C. Packers and the Canadian Fish Company, which are basically foreign operations. For example, Garfield Weston and the New England Fish Company own the Canadian Fish Company.
These companies operate on the coast of British Columbia much like a feudal system. They own the major fleets, they provide the financing to put people in vessels to catch fish and they control the buying, the processors, the processing and ultimately the market. As the control by these companies developed, they moved to Vancouver. Loans and other forms of encouragement from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the natural process of monopoly rationalization brought about the move. As a result of this move, the coast of British Columbia became depopulated. Like so many other resource uoom-and-bust industries, people came out of the major centres such as Vancouver, moved on to the coast and shared in the harvesting of this resource.
However, one group of people left behind in this depopulation process was the Indians. Many of the Indian communities today are in social and economic chaos. They are in that position due largely to the operations of the fishing companies and the corporate concentration of that industry. These companies did not consider the interests of the people of British Columbia, particularly the interests of the people who lived in the small communities along the coast. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, through its short-sighted and inadequate programs, such as the one before the House now, has aided and abetted this situation.
In the recent past, from the late 1950s, changes have been occurring in the industry. Recently we saw the Canada Fish Company fall not by the wayside, but sold to B.C. Packers, which is Garfield Weston's jewel. They have taken over many of the assets of Canada Fish Company and, as a result, part of that market. They will probably gain the rest of it. There is a very real concern that the move toward monopoly control is intensifying. This bill will assist that development.
In the recent past, Japanese entrepreneurs have intruded into the fishing industry in British Columbia. This intrusion is of great concern to the people in the industry because the Japanese appear to be moving into areas in which the Canada Fish Company moved and in which many of the small Canadian enterprises have been trying to establish their presence at all levels of harvesting, processing and marketing.
As these Japanese companies begin to control the industry along the coast of British Columbia, there is the fear that the depopulating process will increase and that they will eventually have a monopoly. Many people who live in these small communities up and down the coast of British Columbia are very concerned about what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has in mind for the future. They want to know
June 5, 1980

how this particular bill will aid and assist the Japanese to take over the industry in British Columbia.
There is also the thought in some areas that the Federal Business Development Bank and fisheries improvement loans, are in fact financing people who are fronting for the Japanese. There is a great deal of concern. I would ask the minister to tell us in British Columbia whether this front financing is taking place, if it will continue and what the prognosis is for the future.
There is also the presence in British Columbia of Japanese fishing companies and trading companies. The government has introduced a bill, the Bank Act, which will allow the Japanese banking community to come to Canada and particularly to British Columbia. Once these Japanese firms gain a foothold and begin to work together in British Columbia, there is the concern that they will, by helping each other, gain complete control of the entire fishing industry. 1 am very concerned for my riding and for the entire west coast fisheries.
1 want the minister to state how this bill and the policies which he will develop will affect the eventual control of the fishing industry. 1 sincerely recommend that Garfield Weston and the Japanese should not be controlling that industry, but that, in fact, it should be controlled by Canadians.
There is another area of concern, which has been discussed by previous speakers who are probably better versed than 1 on the matter. However, there are a few examples I would like to present to highlight some of the things which were said by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) and other hon. members from British Columbia who have spoken. The topic to which I refer is management of the resource.
This bill will allow the government to lend money to build fishing vessels. Apparently the bulk of these loans in the past has been used in British Columbia. It is questionable whether this was wise or necessary. It is fine to build a fishing fleet in British Columbia, but people there are saying that there are not enough fish and that it is the Liberals' fault.
1 would like to know how the government intends to come to grips with this problem. The management of this industry is concerned with such areas as salmon enhancement, conservation, allocation of the resource and licence limitation. I would also add, under this area, the business of the Indian fishery. I hope that the minister in his summary remarks, or perhaps in a policy statement at a later time, will comment on this subject.
The salmon enhancement program is a jewel in the crown of the fisheries department. The program is perceived as one of the most popular and most positive programs in British Columbia. Approximately one year ago the Department of Fisheries and Oceans trouped through the province of British Columbia touting this very successful program and asking for public input. They received public input. They received an expression of a few concerns. One is that the major hatchery program should, in the long run, be abandoned. We have concentrated our fishing production in a few small areas. Such concentration could be vulnerable to disease or environmental
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
pollution and, in fact, might be lost. Some people went so far as to suggest that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was plotting to get rid of the boat fleet, while at the same time placing the hatcheries at the mouths of the rivers to fish there.
A strange thing was happening, Mr. Speaker. In many small streams, aboriginal stocks were being wiped out as the vessels were required to fish intensively the hatchery stock. At the end of the Alberni canal there were originally diverse stocks of fish feeding into many streams and lakes. A hatchery was built at Robertson's Creek and now they have to fish right up the Alberni canal, almost on top of the hatchery, in order to make full use of it. In the process, steelhead and all the other runs have been wiped out. The aboriginal stocks are gone and we are left with the hatchery stock. If that should be struck by disease, then we have nothing. This is a serious concern which has been expressed time and time again and I am sure the minister is aware of it. I wonder what the minister sees for the future of this fishery which is so vulnerable.
Many people in my riding have brought up the question of the government's failure to be heavily involved in the general development of the enhancement program on the coast of British Columbia. The big hatchery program was in place before the salmon enhancement program came along and I do not think the department moved far beyond that.
In the communities of Bella Bella and Bella Coola and some Indian communities, the herring season was closed down and as a result the residents have not earned any income from that source this year. The price of salmon has also dropped dramatically and as a result their incomes are low. There is intensive logging in those areas. Unfortunately, the loggers are flown in from Vancouver so the Indian communities do not participate in the forest industry and remain dependent upon fishing. The forest and fishing industries conflict, however. In areas like the Kimsquit River Valley the fishing habitat will be so badly damaged that the runs will be light, and as a result the economic base of the communities will be affected. We have seen that happen in the Queen Charlotte Islands and other places. There are still a number of grandstand areas with major hatcheries. The whole process could lead to the depopulation of the coast of British Columbia. 1 call this to the attention of the minister and would be pleased to hear his response.
How does the minister plan to distribute the benefits that will accrue from the salmon enhancement program? The program itself is good but it has some very serious weaknesses, such as the way the benefits from the resource are allocated. Some very serious questions about this will arise in the future.
A colleague alluded to the problem of the penny-wise-pound-foolish approach to restraint. It appears that in the restraint programs there is cut-back in human resources which has affected the research program to support the salmon enhancement and other fisheries. As an example, a contract system was used for hiring researchers through a labour recruiting agency outside government. The agency would

June 5, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
recruit and pay the staff and the government would pay the agency a contract rate, but the rate was so low that the staff would not stay. This meant the continuity of research projects could not be maintained. In the end, there was no point in doing the research. Not only were the people assigned to the task on a contract basis frustrated, but so were those directing the program.
What we need is a clear commitment to research. I see that as an investment. 1 separate investment from spending here, Mr. Speaker. Spending provides a service and that can be judged as positive or negative, while investment returns income. Investment in the fishing industry, investment in the enhancement program and investment in research will ultimately return substantial income to the people who live on the west coast of Canada.
Another aspect of the situation is the technical base that is required. We need people to run the hatcheries and to lead the move to upgrade the salmon producing habitat. Staff recruited by an agency in Vancouver for the hatcheries are not always suitable. They are on contract and are paid something just above the minimum wage. As a result, they are ready to leave at a moment's notice if something else turns up. We would be better to make an investment and train a group of individuals to run hatcheries who would be available if the program is expanded. Instead, the enthusiasm of the dedicated people we have is being diminished. 1 know my colleagues from British Columbia would be pleased to hear a response from the government on this aspect of the question. There does not seem to be any point in investing in this area unless the spade work is done.
My next concern is conservation. There is no point in building fishing vessels unless we look after the place where the fish live. Before I came to this House, the former Bill C-38 had been hailed as bringing a new era in conservation and fish habitat protection. The government has encountered some difficulty in enforcing the provisions of that legislation, however. If the fish habitat is destroyed, the stocks will disappear. A continuing source of wealth for British Columbians will be destroyed and this will bring social change to the whole coast of British Columbia.
Strong legislation is needed and to this end I would urge the Department of Fisheries to enforce the provisions of Bill C-38. There seems to be a lack of will to take care of the habitat which will result in a loss not only to this generation but to future generations. My children and their children have as much right to that resource as does the present generation, but unless we protect it, it will be lost to them.
There is also a problem with estuaries, Mr. Speaker, and the tremendous competitive demand for land. This is an old story. Estuary land in British Columbia is being gobbled up because it is more productive than other farm land. Estuaries are being used as municipal sewage dumps or as log booming grounds, even when there are alternatives available. The estuaries are more productive as farm land, so there really should not be competition for use. 1 urge the government to join with the province of British Columbia to negotiate a strong coast zone
management law. This seems to have worked in the state of Washington. We cannot continue to wreck this resource of British Columbia's estuaries by continuing to use them as booming grounds. If we do, they will be useless within 20 years. If we are to practice conservation, a coastal zone management law must be introduced in co-operation with the province of British Columbia.
I do not want to dwell on the question of openings and closings, Mr. Speaker. At the present time an area will suddenly be opened, the whole fleet will race to it, then a couple of big seiners go in, smack it a couple of times and next thing, it is closed. This distorts the allocation procedure and, indeed, can put a lot of people out of business. Unless we are vigilant now the situation will get out of hand. Since the resource belongs to all the people, I wonder if it is legitimate for the Department of Fisheries, under tremendous pressure from different competing groups, to make the decision on this. Or should the ultimate decision on the way fish are allocated be set by Parliament, the province of British Columbia or by the people on the west coast of Canada? We need direction for the fisheries department. This is something they need. They are under tremendous pressure and are trying to rationalize this insane procedure. Down the road many people are going to be hurt by this lack of direction unless some action is taken very soon.
I return now to allocation in the management of resources. This must be a nightmare to the department and to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We see a problem with allocation between the commercial fishery, the sport fishery and the Indian fishery. Within the commercial fishery we see a tremendous competition for gear type, the seiners, the net fishermen, the trawlers; these people are all fighting for their share.
The situation has gone so far that one can never rationalize it. Most people say it is impossible to rationalize without hurting a lot of people. However, the longer one waits and the more you put in the fisheries improvement loans-to encourage people to put new seiners in the water and overcapitalize those vessels, before asking this institution to take some action on that-the more people you are going to hurt and the more you will endanger the resource. It is a very serious situation.
The question of the Indian fishery is one of allocation. A beautiful comment was made yesterday by one of my friends in the Conservative party; it was a slip of the tongue, but it was very relevant. He suggested that we needed a white policy paper in the fishing industry. I suggest that we do have a white policy paper at the present time, but what we may need is an Indian policy paper.
My riding is home to many Indian people who live in Indian communities. The only economic base is the fishing industry. There is a need for access to that resource. One cannot keep hiding in the bushes on this issue, they have to have meaningful access. It is their only hope. But one cannot just give them access to the resource; a mechanism has to be put together by
June 5, 1980

which they can become involved in obtaining the harvesting equipment and the capital to harvest it-for instance, licences, vessels, etc. Once they have those things, the Indians need assistance with processing. It has to be developed. They almost have to have the assistance to vertically develop it. Finally, the Indians have to be given a share, almost guaranteed a share, of marketing. There is a market for fish and it is an excellent one.
The only way to realize the economic benefits of the only resource that can really provide assistance to the Indians who live on the coast of British Columbia is by guaranteeing access to this resource and its economic returns. Social problems, such as housing and health, are there. These are communities where there is 75 to 90 per cent unemployment. Unless there is a commitment made or at least an Indian policy paper on fishing presented, these people are going to continue to wander in social and economic chaos.
Now I come to the licence limitation scheme. I recall from days that have passed the fact that licence limitation was going to help the industry. There were too many boats chasing too few fish. We wanted to get them into manageable proportion and make them efficient so that the people who did fish could earn income. We would therefore take the pressure off the resource, and for the people who did remain involved, those bona fide fishermen-that term was cast around so often- would be provided with a decent living.
From the people 1 have seen in the industry, and in my opinion, the industry is in absolute chaos. The scheme failed to achieve its objectives. A lot of bona fide fishermen have been forced out of the industry. It is virtually an adversary system now where the fisherman is against the fisheries department. There is no attempt to co-operate whatsoever. Many bona fide fishermen have been forced out and now it is a business. Instead of a labour-intensive operation supplying a lot of jobs for people, we now have a very exclusive, highly capitalized operation that is operated by people who are not fishermen. They are entrepreneurs who may be farmers in Saskatchewan or small businessmen, logging contractors or whatever. But basically bona fide fishermen have been forced out of the industry. They have lost their vessels and their incomes and a great deal of harm has been done.
The fleet size comes to mind. There were too few boats chasing too many fish. The boats chasing those fish now could fish out the industry. We are continuing to slide seine boats off the ways. There are more and more of them every year, bigger and more capable seine vessels. 1 do not understand the application of this particular program when it is producing more vessels and more efficient ones that not only go out to take the target fish but take all the other fish around. They have virtually put a stop to the herring fishery.
With regard to the whole question of capitalization, this legislation being put before the House encourages a program which is absolutely opposite to the one that has been cited. It will increase overcapitalization and the size of the fleet. That is not in the interests of British Columbia.
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
The licence limitation program is literally beyond hope. It is unfair and unsuccessful. It has placed the management of the resource in British Columbia in chaos.
Now I come to the question of international agreements, again as part of management. The halibut agreement has harmed a great number of fishermen. There is a feeling that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of the Government of Canada did not negotiate with the United States vigorously enough. With respect to the boundaries and the Dixon Entrance, there is a feeling among the fishermen of B.C. that the Government of Canada does not represent their interests: first of all, that it is not western in orientation, and second, that it only promotes the interests of central Canada. When we go to the table to negotiate in Washington with representatives of the United States government, B.C. fishermen feel that other concerns come up. It seems that we are concerned about matters that affect other areas in Canada and fisheries get traded off. Short-term political gains seem to come to the fore in favour of the long-term protection of our share in this particular resource, whether it is reciprocal fishing agreements or environmental protection, whether it is a halibut agreement or fishing boundaries. There is a profound feeling that we do not defend the interests of the west coast fishery. It seems that we are willing to sacrifice those interests.
I am not sure how one remedies that kind of a situation, but I am certainly concerned about it. I am also concerned about the mechanism we use with the United States where we negotiate with their committees and then the United States Senate determines any treaty arrangement after that. We are bargaining twice. We are invited to make representations twice. It is extremely unfair and frustrating for Canadian fishermen.
In conclusion, 1 have said that these are general observations, but I would invite the minister to comment on them. I know that the people in my riding and in all the other ridings in British Columbia are deeply concerned. 1 recognize that this legislation is designed to suit a particular purpose, but 1 think it is on the wrong track, that the policy statement that is implied or read into it is probably on the wrong track for the west coast, though as my colleagues have said, it may be very appropriate for the east coast.
The management program is erratic and unfair. 1 seriously urge the minister to make some statement to this House about where the fishery is going, so that we can provide some stability to people who want to invest and work in it. People cannot earn a living with these uncertainties. Foss of income and bankruptcy is an all too possible future scenario.
Specific recommendations have been stated before by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni. Some of them are simply observations and recommendations that I would ask for comments on by the minister. First of all, before we get into an ad hoc approach, such as this improvement loan bill before us today, we need a clear statement. One does not exist.
I suggest the way a clear statement could be developed is if we follow the model of the forest industry in British Columbia.

June 5, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
It is an important industry to our province. A major royal commission was appointed years ago under the name of the Sloane commission. Since then we have had royal commissions every ten years to examine the state of the industry and to determine what happened to the last royal commission's recommendations. I would hope the minister and also my colleague from Nanaimo-Alberni will be expounding in more detail the need for a royal commission in B.C. to inquire into the fishing industry of British Columbia on a continuing basis. We cannot go ahead with that in such a state of chaos and mistrust unless we get a Canadian of such repute that the individual will enjoy the confidence of all the parties, someone along the lines of Justice Berger. This is extremely important.
The third thing I would recommend is this. I urge the minister to comment on the enforcement provision of Bill C-28. On the one hand, there seems to be the law. On the other hand, there is a lack of will to enforce that law with vigour. Basically, I would like a clear statement on the problems there and the suggestions he might have to recommend to Parliament or the province of British Columbia.
Next, I urge the minister to obtain early passage of this bill, to work with the province of British Columbia and to urge early passage of a coastal zone management act. I urge his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), to investigate immediately corporate concentration in the fishing industry in British Columbia. I am seriously concerned about this. It is time for a review, with a Canadian fish company going down. Now one major company, B.C. Packers, largely controls the entire industry from harvesting to market. It is time we had a look at this practice.
Also, there is the penetration of the Japanese with their fishing companies and trading companies. I am concerned about that and about the Japanese banks coming in because of this government's legislation on banking. I am concerned where those three sets of companies will eventually take our industry, because we will be dealing with probably one of the most powerful economic cartels in the world when we have that set-up. I urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to have his colleague examine that particular issue. We in British Columbia would like to know about it.
Finally, what is seriously needed is for the minister to outline his intentions with regard to Indian people. I again state that this is their major resource. They need guaranteed access to it. They need not just access but a complete economic package, from access and harvesting capabilities right through to marketing. My colleague in the Conservative party suggested we need a white policy paper. As a counterpart to that, we need an Indian policy paper which is very clearly stated. People on the coast of British Columbia and especially the Indian people would appreciate that. I look forward to hearing about this in the summary remarks, or at some later time, and I know the people of my constituency do as well.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I join in the debate on second reading of
Bill C-28 because it involves assistance to the fishing industry. For that reason, it is of special interest to all members who are concerned with the accelerated development of our inshore and offshore Canadian fishery.
Let me note the presence in the House of my friend and colleague from the neighbouring constituency of Halifax, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan). I am sure he shares with me a special interest in the development of the fishery in Nova Scotia and along the Atlantic coast. I am sure he shares as well the perception that the fishing industry in Nova Scotia, and the Atlantic provinces generally, extends to more than those directly involved in it. It is a matter of our hope for the future. We in the Atlantic area rest much of our future on the success and development of the fishing industry. It is with those thoughts in mind that I review this bill before us, Bill C-28.
Although it is properly characterized as too little and too late, I am inclined to agree that the bill should go forward with due speed to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for consideration. I am mindful that the processing of the bill involves some urgency. Before making some remarks on the principle of this bill, let me review briefly the act that it amends.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in simple terms provides for the guarantee of loans to fishermen from banks, credit unions and private lenders. As I understand it, the bill would raise the loan limit from $75,000 to $150,000 and increase the maximum term for repayment from 10 to 15 years. The new total amount that may be guaranteed has been increased to $250 million. That is the total amount under the act.
There is a reference in the bill to regulation establishing the rate of interest. I do not recall whether the minister specified the rate that would be fixed or whether any change would be made. I understand at the present time the practice is to charge one point over the bank's prime rate of interest. By current standards, that is a very high rate of interest with the way the bank interest rate is now determined.
While that, in summary, is the effect of Bill C-28, it is worth while to examine the use that has been made of the provisions of the act by fishermen. The last report tabled in this House under the act shows a total of $28 million approximately in loans for the 1978-79 fiscal year to which the act relates. The minister tells us this may increase to $35 million in the current year, but who is borrowing these funds? One of my colleagues has pointed out that the major portion of the total loan funds are borrowed in British Columbia; in fact, $23.5 million of the $28.3 million total relates to B.C. loans.
There is a reason for this and it is important to place that reason on record in this House. The Atlantic provinces-and I speak particularly of Nova Scotia-have government agencies that deal in loans to fishermen. For that reason, there is less recourse to the provisions of federal loan guarantee legislation.
To put the matter in perspective, my information is that the fishermen's loans board of Nova Scotia, in the same period
June 5, 1980

covered by the last report under the act, being the fiscal year 1978-79, provided loans that totalled over $50 million. Right now the board is engaged in trawler construction financing of $28 million for three vessels. That alone equals the amount spent under the federal act.
It should also be recorded that the provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would probably provide financing for fishing vessel construction through boards and agencies equal in amount to Nova Scotia. Through the provincial agencies in the Atlantic provinces, there is financing for construction of fishing vessels to an amount that probably exceeds $100 million. So you can see that the federal government is not the only government supporting fishing vessel construction.
That is not all the story when it comes to defects in the act. The limits are not realistic for the east coast. 1 am told a 65-foot dragger would cost over $500,000 and a 45-foot drag-ger at least half that, so financing vessels over 45 feet is precluded by the $150,000 limit that will be imposed under the act.
The act extends to the financing not only of fishing vessels, but to onshore installations. This has no value when applied to the east coast fishery where a fish plant that provides for the freezing of fish would cost a minimum of $1 million, and probably much more.
Then there is the interest rate which I have already mentioned. 1 understand that under the amending bill the rate can be fixed, with the co-operation or approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), but it will still be related to the bank prime rate and could result in rates of 18 per cent and more.
In Nova Scotia, and I believe in the other Atlantic provinces a New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, for boats under 45 feet-and that is the only size that would benefit under the federal act in view of the cost of construction-the interest rate for those vessels is 6V4 per cent. We can see why the federal act is little used in Atlantic Canada.
That brings me to another point regarding the principle of Bill C-28. We must consider any assistance to the fishing industry in the light of all the available assistance, federal and provincial, and assess it on that basis. What lies at the real heart of the fishing industry in eastern Canada is the disputes and the problems which arise from joint federal and provincial jurisdiction over the fishing industry. I include in the term "fishing industry" the inshore and offshore fisheries plus the shore installations and facilities that we have in our fishing plants.
To confirm that this is very much a consideration relevant to this bill, let me refer to the minister's own remarks when he introduced this bill and said that the provinces approve the assistance provided by this federal legislation.
In considering the principle of this important change which is provided by Bill C-28, 1 want to examine some of the
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act problem areas in federal-provincial relations in the fishing industry. The matter of direct sales-that is, sales over the sides of local inshore fishing vessels to foreign interests-has caused great concern and consternation, particularly with provincial ministers of fisheries. These sales have disrupted the orderly development of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia and, I believe, in other of the Atlantic provinces, and it is a matter under the direct control and supervision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister of that department.
It has been said that these direct sales would be discontinued, but there are still rumours that they are taking place or are going to take place, and this is a real concern to the fish-packing plants which, I remind the House, employ many more persons and provide a living for many more persons than the fishing vessels themselves. This is not to discount in any way the contribution of the inshore fishermen who benefit from these direct over-the-side sales. It is merely to point out and underline the fact that this federal-provincial dispute disrupts the orderly development of the fishing industry. I for one-and I am sure many of my colleagues feel the same way-feel that we want attention paid to the inshore fisheries and fishermen equal to that paid to the offshore fisheries. We support any measures which provide benefits to inshore fishermen, but the matter of direct sales over the sides of fishing vessels to foreign trawlers and fish factory ships is not conducive to the orderly development of the east coast fishery.
I have talked on many occasions to inshore fishermen and their representatives, and I realize and recognize the benefit that they receive directly from these kinds of direct sales. However, we have seen situations in which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, through the minister, has approved transactions which did not benefit the fishing industry as a whole. In some cases-and I refer to St. Margaret's Bay in my constituency of Halifax West-there has been very little benefit to the local fishermen. What has happened in some cases is that the minister, or his officers, has purported to negotiate arrangements with foreign trawler owners who in fact appear to be representatives of the Soviet Union. They have arranged transactions which involved quotas which in many cases could not be met. That is to say that in these transactions the Canadian government promises to provide, through its inshore fishermen, a certain quota of a certain species, and if that quota is not met, usually some other provision is made so that another species like squid can be substituted, and the foreign trawlers are allowed to fish for that particular species.
On the face of it, this arrangement results in the inshore fishermen receiving a higher price for these species that they are providing. That is in competition with onshore purchasers, so that it may involve the inshore fishermen getting a price of 11 cents or 12 cents, apparently, as opposed to a price of eight cents or nine cents per pound for the species involved. However, through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), the government has not given the opportunity to local purchasers, fish companies and fish packers, who would normally purchase the particular species, to meet the deal

June 5, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act given to foreign vessel owners. That is to say, they have not given to our local Canadian fish packers the same arrangement they have permitted foreign trawler owners to make.
This is something 1 point out and underline because it is an area in which there is a great deal of dispute and concern. It disrupts the orderly development of the fishing industry, and when he is considering this bill and related matters I would like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to pay close attention to that and to recognize the difficulties which are caused by direct sales arrangements.
There is another area which pertains to this bill but which is not directly covered by it, and that is the vessel construction subsidy. This again has been a source of annoyance between fishermen and both the federal and provincial governments. 1 say that because for some time the federal government provided, for certain vessels, a 35 per cent subsidy, but only when funds were available. This again contributed to uncertainty in the fishing industry. Because of this subsidy, people who might otherwise not have been prepared to replace their vessels or build other vessels or engage in the fishing industry were prompted to replace their vessels or for other reasons construct vessels. The subsidy, however, has dried up on occasion or been cut off, and I understand it is now frozen and unavailable. This again is not the sort of thing which is conducive to the orderly development of the fishing industry. It has in the past, however, resulted in the building of Cadillac fishing vessels when Chevy-type fishing vessels would have served the purpose equally well.
This is an area in which the federal department should co-operate with provincial departments and the fishermen's loans board to make sure that they are properly serving the fishermen when they turn on or turn off the tap of this federal vessel construction subsidy.
Let me say in that connection that many now think that a preferable method would involve something similar to the registered home ownership program which prevailed in the past. Under such a program, fishermen would be able to put aside, with appropriate tax benefits, a certain amount of money a year which could be collected in a fund to assist in the construction of new replacement fishing vessels. This is one item I put forward to the minister as a possible benefit to fishermen in the same area which is covered by the bill.
One of the things which is of great concern in my constituency of Halifax West and along the east coast of Atlantic Canada is small craft harbours. In the debate on this bill we are talking about construction of fishing vessels, but if one were to tour the south shore of Nova Scotia and examine the wharves fishermen have to use in order to dock their boats and offload their catches, one would realize that a great deal of money and effort has to be put into the development of small craft harbours.


Mr. Regan:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: The Minister of Labour applauds because 1 am sure he has been to some of the small craft harbours in Halifax county that I have visited. I could tell some horror stories
about small craft harbours. For example, notwithstanding a budget of millions of dollars, it is virtually impossible to get the small craft harbours administration to instal lights on some of the wharves about which I am concerned and interested. It is ridiculous because here is a wharf the construction of which cost in excess of $100,000, it is dark at night, and the fisherman who lands there has to offload his vessel in darkness or with the aid of a flashlight or lantern. For the sake of the $100 or so involved to instal a light and the few dollars a month it would take to maintain it, 1 really do not wonder why people lose faith in government and government officers.
So we in Nova Scotia look forward to small craft harbours development programs which would go side by side with the vessel assistance program to enable our fishermen to make proper use of the vessels, to become more efficient and to utilize, to the best advantage of all Canadians, these government sources that are made available to fishermen through programs such as the fishermen's loan program.
One of the ideas that has been given to me and which makes a great deal of sense is the possibility of developing fisheries service centres as part of the small craft harbours program. As you go along the coast of Atlantic Canada, you see a great many small craft harbours, each with their own wharf-in some cases in dangerous disrepair-yet maintained under the small craft harbours administration, but there are no facilities beyond the wharf and, as I say, without a light which can be used at night, which comes very early in Nova Scotia in the fall and in the spring, I assure you, Mr. Speaker.
There are no facilities at small craft harbours, so some people, and I tend to agree with them, realize that the money would be better spent if larger service centres could be established at which other facilities beyond just a wharf, docking and off-loading installations would be available. One of these facilities-and I use this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House that this particular program for providing very special facilities has been discontinued-is the ice-making machinery program which the federal government assisted and contributed to through, I understand, the provincial departments of fisheries. Funds for this program have been cut off so that ice-making machinery is not available to many of our fishermen at a time when all experts in the fishing industry say you must improve the quality of the fish, and that the only way to do this is to ensure that the fish, as soon as they are caught, are put in a state nearest to frozen as they can be, and continued in that state. Certainly they should be kept cool if the facilities are not sufficient to freeze them.
That is one area in which the federal government and the minister have shown a lack of concern for the real problems of fishermen. By continuing that program, it could have meant in particular cases that the fishermen could get their catch to a packer in prime condition suitable for the world markets, and in a quality state which is demanded by the persons who purchase for those markets.
June 5, 1980

Another area in which the federal government and the minister have shown their disdain for the problems of fishermen-and I seek again the opportunity to put this on record- is in the matter of fisheries research. You will recall the minister of fisheries in 1978 discontinued the fisheries laboratory facility in Halifax. This caused a great deal of difficulty and consternation, and again it came at a time when research was a very important element of the fishing industry. Without proper research, the Canadian fishery is in danger of not being developed along the lines that it could be developed, and with very grave consequences to the fishermen and the fish packers and all of those concerned with and engaged in the fishing industry.
Another area of federal-provincial relations in the fishing industry that demands some examination is the area of aquaculture. Aquaculture involves oysters, clams, mussels, and indeed some of the sea plants and seaweeds that are used and can be used commercially. This is an area that probably should and does come under provincial jurisdiction, but it is an area in which the federal government should take an interest because it provides the opportunity for other income for fishermen who, during periods of bad weather, may not be able to go to sea in their vessels but could engage in some aspect of the aquaculture branch of the fisheries industry. I would like to see the minister give a little more attention to that problem and involve himself with his provincial counterparts to work out some of these problems and provide some of this very important aid.
Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by again underlining the importance of good federal-provincial relations in the fisheries industry. The future of the industry depends on that. Matters of licensing, fish allocation, the fostering of international agreement, are all dependent upon the provinces, through their fisheries ministers and the federal fisheries minister, reaching decisions on these very vital areas.
As I understand it, the maritime ministers of fisheries met just this week in Fredericton, New Brunswick, considered many items of common concern, and I believe formulated a statement which was either available or soon will be available in which they list some of these areas of real concern. I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will regard very seriously the recommendations made by this group, and bring about a change in what has been a continuing problem in the fisheries industry.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe that it is at all a case of favouring the inshore fishery versus the offshore fishery. I do not believe that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should take the position as he has done in the past, that he is the advocate of the inshore fishermen and is protecting them against the fish barons, the offshore industry. Because whether it is inshore or offshore, there are many people who are dependent on the fishing industry for their livelihood and for their future. I do not think anybody can seriously believe that we can withstand these interprovincial and federal-provincial squabbles, and 1 do not think there is anybody who does not believe that, unless these areas of
Royal Assent
differences are ironed out and worked out, we can not progress as we should in the fishing industry.
With those remarks, I would close by saying that I welcome any federal provisions that would benefit fishermen. The bill now before us, Bill C-28, does not have particular application to the Atlantic area, but as I said before, viewed in the context of all the assistance that can be and will be made available to fishermen, it is a welcome item and one that should go to the committee and be considered.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I 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 C-16, to amend the Old Age Security Act, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
June 5, 1980
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 5th day of June, at 5 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be. Madam,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General

June 5, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellen-berger)-Energy Conservation-Inquiry whether legislative action proposed; the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes)-Employment-Training programs for women; the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose)-Health and Welfare-Medicare program-Announced increases in premiums by British Columbia.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc that Bill C-28, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: !
appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill C-28, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. As I look at this bill I have certain concerns. Fisheries plays a very important role in the economy of my riding, Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. I do not wish to cover the waterfront in my talk; however, I do want to concentrate on one or two features.
First of all, I want to endorse the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), when he spoke about undisciplined overcapitalization. The cliche that we usually apply to this-and like all cliches, it has a degree of truth in it-is: Too much gear chasing too few fish. The fact that there is too much gear chasing too few fish is hurting fishermen.
Different answers are proposed to this dilemma, and one of them is the salmonid enhancement program, a program which we endorse. While we endorse the idea of the salmonid enhancement program as providing the possibility of more fish, we do not understand how the government can be proposing that program and at the same time failing to protect adequately fish habitat where these same salmon will be growing.
The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) referred to the need for a more adequate program to protect
our estuaries. I am very concerned about the Cowichan estuary in my riding. It was two years ago that a task force was appointed by the provincial government on which the federal department of fisheries had representation. That task force heard numerous submissions for the citizens of the Cowichan area and from environmental groups desiring to protect that estuary from increased industrialization. Estuaries are easy places on which to expand industries, but we are only beginning to recognize the tremendous potential of estuaries for producing life and protein, and the place they occupy in the life cycle of many fish. Increased industrialization of the estuary involves land fill and dredging. This will be harmful to fish habitat.
While we have been waiting for two years for the report of the task force to be handed down, we have seen many small examples of this movement for increased industrialization going on apace. Log booms are more prevalent now than they were five years ago, and they are found outside their established leased areas. The destruction to estuaries because of log booms is becoming more and more known.
I should like to raise the following question with the hon. members and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc): What has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans been doing in order to protect this estuary? Where is the report of this task force? What has the department been doing to reassure the people who are fighting for the life of this estuary? When I meet with people who are involved in trying to save this estuary from industrialization, I realize that they are becoming discouraged; they are becoming disillusioned with coming before government with petitions and letters. They are beginning to wonder about the whole political process. In good faith two years ago, they put their submissions before the task force, yet the report has not been tabled. I should like the federal department to use some of its clout to get the provincial government to table that report. At the very least the department should move to reassure the people of the Cowichan Valley that there will be no further industrialization which in any way will adversely affect fish habitat.
We on the Pacific coast are very much concerned with the threat of increased tanker traffic. When tanker traffic is increased, not only is the danger of eco-disasters increased, but inevitably the day-by-day increment of seepage and small spills is increased, and this has a very detrimental effect upon our fisheries. Quite frankly, we are not happy with the very inadequate response so far from the government.
As we look at the salmonid enhancement program, we are happy that it exists, but we wonder what the point is of trying to provide this program. On the one hand, while on the other we do not preserve the existing fish habitat.
That brings me to the question of the bill before us which will provide more capital for more gear. What is the point of providing this capital unless we are willing to protect the existing fish habitat?
As I pointed out, the fact that we have too much gear chasing too few fish is hurting our fishermen. One group of fishermen that is being hurt the most is the Indian people.
June 5, 1980

They are being squeezed out of an industry in which they have always played a very key role. In fact, the entire culture and civilization of the native people along the Pacific coast has been dependent upon the resources of the sea. I am not only referring to the native people on the Pacific coast of British Columbia, but to those right from California north to Alaska. This is one of their aboriginal rights.
When the reserves were being set up for the people of British Columbia, instead of the larger reserves that are found in other parts of the country, the reserves for coastal Indians were very small. It was recognized that they faced out toward the sea and got their living from the sea, in large part, rather than from the land. In the early years of this century, a federal-provincial commission, the McKenna-McBride commission, recognized this fact and urged that certain plots of oceans and certain streams be put aside for the exclusive use of the native Indian people. This indicates the historic relationship between the Indian people and the fishery of our coast.
When the commercial fishing industry was first established in British Columbia, it depended very heavily upon native Indian people for labour. As those people began to relate to the impinging white culture, they came to depend very heavily upon commercial fishing as their means of livelihood. Now they are being squeezed out of this industry; they are being left behind. One trend that is taking place now-and it has taken place over a number of years-is that many of the small canneries on river inlets were shut down. They were moved to central places like Namu and Prince Rupert. Now the cannery at Namu has been closed and Prince Rupert has less of an industry than before. More and more of the fishing industry is being concentrated in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Not only is this leaving the native people behind and leaving no economic base for their communities, but it is a tremendous waste of our human resource. Also it is a very energy-intensive kind of centralization. At a time when we in Canada are facing an energy crisis, perhaps we should be asking questions as to whether this is the route we should be going. It is a waste of human resources and a waste of our energy resources.
The native people of British Columbia have a growing population, a young population. Increasingly these young people find that there is no place for them in the fishing industry. An industry which provided work for their parents and their grandparents has no place for them. Also we can look at the rising suicide rate, the rising crime rate and the rising rate of illness, and we do not need to ask too many questions about some of the reasons for this. The unemployment rate among young native people on the Pacific coast is directly related to their lack of opportunity in the fishing industry.
There are several reasons why they are being squeezed out. First of all, we can point to the failure of our educational programs and the failure to help these young people cope with new developments in technology and in managerial skills.
Second, we can point to the licensing program which was introduced by a Liberal government some ten years ago. At that time the minister of fisheries talked about getting rid of
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
some of the marginal people in the fishing industry. Perhaps these people were marginal from the point of view of the western empire, and perhaps they were marginal from the point of view of the Canadian fishing company before it became marginal itself; but I want to assure the House that these fishermen were not marginal from the point of view of their communities and they were not marginal from the point of view of their own families. They were the mainstay of these communities and the mainstay of their own families. What we have done with our licensing program is crowded them, not only out of their margins, but pushed them right off the edge. This licensing program has not accomplished its own stated objectives, but it has very effectively helped to squeeze the native people out of the fishing industry in British Columbia. Again there is a problem resulting from the lack of capital. Does this act help native Indian people in its terms? I suggest it does not.
Along with native groups I am glad the minister has indicated he intends to restore funds for the native fisheries assistance plan. 1 think that is good, but we need to realize this is a very small group of fishermen who will be helped in this way. In this connection, I would like to read a letter 1 received from a young Indian woman. It states in part:
We are a young couple trying to stand on our feet, but with a lot of hindrance from the fisheries and the licence system we are now without a licence for our trolier, we have no way to make a living. We have wrote letters to Sol Sinclair, who was supposed to have worked on the "B" licences. So far he has gotten nowhere. We weren't able to save enough money to purchase an "A" licence because of the income tax we have to pay.
She continues:
My words may not be strong enough to affect or get heard by anyone. But at least I am trying. I would like your opinion on what I am saying. Also who can help us. My husband and I have a lot of pride, we don't want to resort to welfare cheques.
This very moving letter I think speaks for a lot of young Indian people who would like to be able to have a stake in the fishing industry in British Columbia, who would like to be able to build and plan their lives with some pride and dignity. This legislation does nothing to help them and, indeed, there is no legislation or program I have seen which will help them.
The Native Brotherhood in British Columbia has submitted a brief to the minister outlining some of their concerns in this area. In this regard they say:
In the case of coastal Indians historically and presently dependent upon the fisheries resources of British Columbia, there is an obvious requirement to guarantee continued and increased opportunities in all aspects of the fishing industry.
This is a prerequisite for meaningful participation in the economic activities of the areas in which Indians live and for achieving a measure of control over their own social, cultural and economic destiny.
The brief goes on to state:
The response of both the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Indian Affairs-both key departments in so far as Indians in British Columbia are concerned-to the above priorities, related programs and funding, is one of nominal support for the self-development concept. However, in practice, the efforts of departmental personnel and the programs initiatied are severely restricted in their scope and potential for achieving true self-development.

June 5, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
There is nominal support but there is little real help, f would ask this government, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and in conjunction with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to bring into this House a comprehensive program to ensure the place of the Indian fisherman in British Columbia.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cause any nervous spasms over on the other side, and I do promise after I have made a comment or two to make certain that this bill is allowed to go through before five o'clock. However, I think this is an opportunity for me to deal with a matter of pretty grave importance to a lot of the people I represent along the Fraser River system in British Columbia, and I want to say one or two words about their present concerns while the parliamentary secretary to the minister is in the House. I do not suggest I am going to come up with any great profundities related to solutions to the problems of concentration of ownership, habitat destruction, or the loss of wetlands for spawning grounds which is occurring all over the country, especially on the west coast as it applies particularly to the salmon fishery.
1 will say, however, that there seem to be signs that the salmon fishery in British Columbia is on the decline because of the concentration of very advanced and highly capitalized fishing and hunting equipment. The people 1 represent, or some of them, especially those who are engaged in a special kind of river fishery, are in fact the last in line when it comes to the distribution of the catch. Consequently, in addition to the suspicions that abound when people's livelihoods are at stake, through the natural competition within the industry, and from foreign sources, again with highly efficient and efficacious gear, there is within the fishery a natural suspicion that I think needs to be explored and perhaps laid to rest because it is based on facts and on rumours. I do not think we can ignore the fact that it exists whether factually based or not.
We have had in the Fraser River fishery this year only six openings for spring salmon, and these openings have occurred approximately once a week. To date there have been six, and last year by this time there were 17. To date we have caught 2,600 fish. That is the total catch for Fraser River gill netters.
Because the gill netter is the last in line, if there is overfishing by foreign fleets or by our own domestic fleets with other kinds of methods, set up in different ways, such as the trailers and seiners, the catch of these fishermen is much reduced.
This situation was described, I thought very eloquently, by my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). He described these radio-controlled, fast, efficient fishing machines which, once an opening was called, raced from one point to another in a moment, practically, in terms of the season, rapidly depleting that particular area as it is declared open. This has led to overcapitalization with larger and larger vessels costing more and more money, employing fewer and fewer people. That seems to be the story of our life.
1 would not want to occur in British Columbia the kind of demand that occurred in Newfoundland where the inshore fisheries were declared at one point to be redundant, and the only salvation for the Newfoundlander was to move him into large communities, destroying his particular culture and way of life, taking what was once an independent, self-reliant family living in a small village, to which he could relate, and making another welfare case in a larger vicinity.
It is very important, I think, in our headlong rush to greater and greater efficiency that we also keep in mind that there is a human factor, and that the large, advanced fishing machines do not pay for very much at the local store. We must remember that the destruction of many small, independent communities is the result of what we call our headlong rush to modernization. 1 think the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) would agree that the same thing has happened to some extent, perhaps to a large extent, in prairie areas which he represents.
Many, many monuments to the initiative and self-reliance of individuals have been destroyed as the smaller towns disappear because of larger farms. That seems to have been the trend in the last quarter of the twentieth century. We must make certain that there is a place for people and that that place will provide self-fulfilling and useful occupations. We must make certain that we do not allow ourselves, through various kinds of government initiatives, such as the bill we were discussing now, to allow people to be displaced and misplaced.
What is happening as a result of the intense competition within the groups of seiners, trawlers and gill netters and the foreign competition which has already been alluded to in this debate is that the industry is experiencing practically a fish war on both coasts. There have been instances in Alaska where declarations of open fishing in certain parts of shared waters have been such that the fisheries department has-and I hope that this is not too strong a word-unleased Canadian fishermen. In other words, it has removed the discipline of our conservation measures to the point where Canadian fishermen are competing wholesale with American fishermen and intercepting fish bound for American rivers.
The Americans may retaliate if this kind of thing is allowed to proceed and if we are unable to reach an agreement on both coasts with regard to this commonly shared, natural, renewable resource. This bill is not a matter of small consequence. Unless we can get ratification through the U.S. Senate in a relatively short period of time, we will be back at square one. In the meantime, we may have lost a resource or so seriously damaged it that it will take years to recover it, at a time when the demand for protein is increasing as populations grow. 1 do not think that we can afford that kind of frivolous, unco-operative management of a resource which is so valuable not only to Canada and the U.S. but to the world.
When these closures, such as the one which I described as the beginning of my remarks, result, fishermen on the Fraser River who have a large investment in gear, who must meet these investments and who are denied an opportunity to recoup
June 5, 1980

this investment-in other words, to pursue their livelihood- are the ones who lose. We must realize, though, that there must be a certain amount of escapement or there will be no tomorrow for the fishing industry.
There are at least three advisory committees to the ministry of fisheries on the Pacific coast. There is an advisory committee in the north, an advisory committee to the sockeye commission, which is an international commission, and an advisory committee for the Frasher fisheries. At the moment these committees do not make reports publicly. Their recommendations to the ministry do not, in the normal course of events, see the light of day in the public press. The reports are not published and distributed to the fishermen, unless it is through the fishermen's union paper and, of course, all fishermen, particularly gill netters, do not necessarily belong to the fishermen's union.
I would like to pay tribute once again to the kinds of things that have been happening in the enhancement program. However, besides underlining the gravity of the problems in the British Columbia salmon fishery at the moment, I suggest that we try to obtain the co-operation of the groups involved and make certain that the knowledge of the amount of catch, escapement, and the amount taken by native fishermen- which is their right-is made available on a regular basis and on a highly public basis within the industry, so that there can be a fair and equitable distribution among the people who are dependent upon this resource for their livelihood.
At the moment it is felt among the gill netters, the people I largely represent within the industry, that since they are the last in line and since they may possibly be, because they operate in the river, not as highly mechanized as other groups, that they are always asked to pay the price through early closures resulting from the excesses of others. They also feel there are not enough fisheries inspection officers or habitat control officers to make certain that their rights are protected, that the fish which they lose through escapement to the spawning grounds are, indeed, used efficiently once they get to the spawning grounds. This is because there is a lack of investment in proper spawning ground management and control.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to say these few words on this subject. As far as my party is concerned, we are prepared to let the bill go through this stage.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this bill, but I do want to make one short point. I will be brief so that we can pass this bill before five o'clock. I want to highlight what is happening on the west coast in the fishing industry. As the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) has indicated, some of the regulatory habits of the department of fisheries are frustrating the fishermen.
However, there is another aspect which I think should be brought to the attention of this House, and that is the pyramiding of corporate power, which is frustrating the independence of the fishermen. Fishermen by nature are independent
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act businessmen. When B.C. Packers bought out the Canadian Fish Company, it effectively left British Columbia with only one corporation with which the fishermen could deal. That means that the fishermen will be forever indentured to that one corporation. Such a move is very destructive of the fishing industry of that province.
Secondly, there used to be fishermen who were unhappy with B.C. Packers and moved over to Canadian Fish Company. Now that the Canadian Fish Company has been bought by B.C. Packers, these fishermen are, really, people without a country because there is nowhere for them to go. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and his parliamentary secretary must look at this situation because it is no good to pass a bill such as the one before us which extends the borrowing power and refinancing possibilities of fishermen if they have nowhere to go once they have refinanced their vessels.


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to speak, very briefly of course, in support of Bill C-28. The debate has been very interesting. I have listened with great interest, both today and yesterday, to all hon. members who spoke, and many good points were raised. However, many of the points were very global in nature and were not apropos the bill itself.
The bill increases the borrowing power from $75,000 to $150,000 for vessel construction or improvement. Certainly members who took part in the debate had very different views on what the bill would do and would not do for the fishery. There may have been some misunderstanding as to its purpose, but since the bill will go to committee, many of the questions will be answered at that time.
1 think one hon. member mentioned that the bill could influence and assist in corporate concentration of the fishery. Given the amount of money involved in this bill, it would probably work directly opposite to that suggestion simply because the purpose of the bill is to help the small independent fisherman. I do not have much more to say on the bill, with the exception that we will move it to committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers).

June 5, 1980
Classification Audit


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert (Vaudreuil):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the data base upon which the Report on the Classification Audit in the National Capital Area and the Non-National Capital Area was based.
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and if 1 may be permitted I will continue the debate begun a few days ago on the motion introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). We were then talking about the classification of government employees and in that respect, 1 personally talked about what is called the red circling of employees. I explained the procedure we used so people would not be penalized as a result of the reclassification of their positions. With your permission, I will continue today to discuss that point and a few other matters.

Madam Speaker, in the earlier part of the motion the hon. member for Vaudreuil stated that the objective of the motion is to try to obtain more information on what is happening in the public service in the area of classification. It is to that point that I am going to address my remarks. I will attempt to respond to this request by outlining some of the more important changes Treasury Board has made to the policies and procedures governing classification in the public service.
As you may recall, Madam Speaker, the classification of 4,000 positions throughout the public service was conducted in two distinct phases. After the initial findings of the audit of the national capital area were communicated to the departments, Treasury Board continued with the audit outside the national capital area. In addition, Treasury Board undertook a pilot study of the classification system in the personnel policy branch of Treasury Board and in one operating department, as well as a detailed review of all policies and procedures related to classification in the public service.
These reviews indicated that there were significant problems in the conduct and management of, and results being realized from, the classification system as it stood. In terms of the quality of classification decisions, they indicated an unacceptable degree of overclassification; that is, putting people in a higher category than they should have been. As well, there was some underclassification and some allocation to the wrong occupational category or group. These were few and did not account for the high misclassification rate.
It was concluded that some of these problems were caused by attempts to use the classification system to solve problems in other personnel areas, such as recruitment and retention of personnel. Other problems were caused by the policies and procedures themselves.
Specifically, the classification was not-I repeat, not- designed to allow the classification of individual positions to, first of all, attract, reward, retain, sanction or remove employees. It was not designed to circumvent the intent of wage controls or bargained pay rates by reclassifying positions and individuals upwards. It was not designed to reflect perceived intergroup pay relativities. The common perception is that the pay relationships do exist between groups as well as incomes.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attend immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
["It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.\nAt 5.29 p.m. the House took recess."]
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to a certain bill:
Bill C-16, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act-Chapter 4.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the data base upon which the report on the Classification Audit in the national capital area and the non-national capital area was based.
Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I thank you for permitting me to continue after the very brief interruption when we had to go to the Senate. It is always a pleasure for us to visit the other place. I had occasion to walk with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and he was saying that he was looking forward to the day when he could more than just visit there, or words to that effect.
June 5, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. No doubt the hon. member is having fun, but I am sure he knows that in this place one is supposed to speak the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That remark is as far-fetched as it can possibly be. The hon. member was probably speaking for himself.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I did not intentionally mislead this House; 1 probably misunderstood. But if anyone deserves to be honoured by being placed in the Senate, in my humble opinion, it would be the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member call that an honour? It would be a living death.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gilbert Parent: As for myself, 1 will let history take its course.
I was saying what the classification system was not designed to do and I had mentioned three things. Fourth, it was not designed to provide protection from the impact of reorganizations which result in a reduction in number of positions or responsibilities.
On December 18, 1978, the document entitled "Report on the Classification Audit in the National Capital Area and the Non-National Capital Area" was tabled in the House. As a result of this report and the review of all existing classification policies and procedures, Treasury Board moved systematically to revise its policies and procedures to overcome the problems and difficulties identified with classification in the public service. These changes to the policies and procedures are designed to improve the classification system and correct the misclassification of positions.
In summary, the various changes and actions undertaken by the Treasury Board are as follows. The Treasury Board advised all departments and agencies of the results of the special audit and instructed those with positions identified as misclassified to undertake corrective action. Wherever appropriate, the follow-up action was initiated by the Treasury Board and the process of correcting the misclassified positions has now been completed. In terms of information, this should be pleasing to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).
The Treasury Board secretariat began a review of the classifications systems and procedures in all departments and agencies and in 1979-80 completed the review in 10 departments. Each department is required to prepare an action plan in response to the recommendations made and the secretariat monitors these plans to ensure that corrective action is taken.
The Treasury Board secretariat reviewed all occupational
groups identified in the audit report as having special problems
Classification Audit
and has initiated corrective action. The board withdrew from all departments and agencies the authority to classify positions in the higher levels of the personnel administration, financial administration, economics, sociology and statistics groups. These proposed new positions or classification level changes in these cases are submitted for final decision to Treasury Board. Treasury Board has established specific procedures and time frames for correcting any misclassification. Here it must be understood that great strides have been taken to correct any misclassification areas which were built into the system. I am proud of the progress that has been made over the last short period of time.
In conclusion, over the past few years the administration and the policies and procedures of the classification system of the public service have been subjected to a comprehensive and detailed review-the first such detailed review since the current system was put in place-which has brought about an improvement and strengthening of the administration of the classification system of the public service of Canada.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes allowed me to wind up this debate, 1 will in just a few words go over what we were intending to do in putting this motion on the order paper.
The motion deals with the subject of classification, but the intent is to underline again the desire of members of Parliament to be informed on the progress the government is making in implementing the recommendations of the various reports and studies that have been submitted to this House. 1 have said before, and 1 wish to reiterate, that nothing in my remarks in this debate is intended as criticism of the individual public servant. It is my opinion that the great majority of public servants have a position attitude toward their work. They regret and want to see an end to the widespread criticism of the efficiency of the public service, a criticism which should be restricted to the system and not to the individual.
I had some discussion in the last week or two with various individuals concerning the difference between the position of a member of Parliament and the position of a senator. When a report is tabled in this House, that is effectively the end of the discussion. There is no means by which the member of Parliament can continue the debate, in committee or in the House, or to pressure the government to report on progress, whereas in the Senate they have their own means to continue the debate on the subject as they desire.
In the future when we change the system in this House, we must find some means by which we have continuing discussion on the various reports that are tabled.
1 would like to list three reports to which I referred earlier to indicate why it is so necessary that we have something from the government on the progress they made either in implementing recommendations or in deciding not to take action, and if they decide not to take action, we should know that.
The first report to which I referred was tabled in this House on Thursday, February 26, 1976, by myself as co-chairman of the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations

June 5, 1980
Classification Audit
in the public service. It contained 72 recommendations. As 1 said in my opening remarks in this debate, those recommendations were almost unanimous in the opinion of the members of the committee. That report is commonly known as the Finkel-man report.	.
The second report to which I referred is commonly known as the Lambert commission report, the final report of the royal commission of financial management and accountability, which was presented to His Excellency the Governor General in March, 1979, and contains 165 recommendations.
The third report to which I referred, commonly known as the D'Avignon report, the report of the special committee on the review of personnel management and the merit principle, which was submitted to the then president of the privy council on September 30, 1979, contained 179 recommendations: In three reports there were a total of four hundred and some odd recommendations about which I as an individual and most members of this House would like some indication of progress.
After I made my initial remarks, we were told by the spokesman for the government that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) was making an effort to ensure that there would be more information flowing to the members. Based on this commitment by the President of the Treasury Board to inform members of Parliament on the progress of the implementation of these recommendations, 1 request leave to withdraw my motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the request of the hon. member for Vaudreuil. Is this agreed by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Daudlin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it might be in order at this point to ask that you respectfully see it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.29 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 9, 1980, 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.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On clause 1 -
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Employment and Immigration could begin by giving us some idea of what we face in the way of an unemployment situation in the next couple of years. What kind of figures is he using in terms of estimates of the number of people who will be unemployed in this country in the next two years? In what month does he expect the highest rate of unemployment? Will it be next January, 1981? Will it be January, 1982? About how many people does the minister think will be involved?


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Chairman, I think if the hon. member would revert to the statement which was made by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, when he outlined the government's economic position some two or three weeks ago, he would find those kinds of assessments made. As the chief economic officer for the government it is his responsibility to provide those kinds of estimates. As the hon. member will well know, such estimates are always subject to a great deal of variation, but I would refer him to those estimates. The Minister of Finance did indicate at that point in time that, in an over-all sense, with the recession we are contemplating taking place in the United States, and which is already in fact there, we could be looking at an unemployment range of 8 per cent to 8.2 per cent beginning in the winter of the forthcoming year. I obviously hope that that will not be the case, but considering the way we are affected by economic downturns in the international arena and in North America, we are looking at that kind of projection.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, as 1 remember the statement in the House of the Minister of Finance it was notable for its lack of completeness. It was a partial budget. I think the average unemployment rate which the minister was predicting at that point referred to this year, and I think if we look at econometric projections we will see that the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.
June 5, 1980

Given the fact that this year began with a 7.4 per cent unemployment rate, an average rate in the neighbourhood of 8 per cent gets us moving very close to 9 per cent by the end of this year. I am interested so much in the percentage as to whether it is 7 per cent, 8 per cent or 9 per cent; I would like to ask the minister, because I think it is a very reasonable question and an absolutely essential piece of information for us as we look at his portfolio and the bill which he proposes here tonight, to give us some sense of how many people he thinks will be unemployed in this country during the worst month in the next two years, because that is absolutely essential to his planning.	,
Certainly 1 would assume that the Minister of Employment and Immigration, as he deals with the unemployment insurance fund, with job creation, with training opportunities with the mega projects, should have a set of numbers available to him in his department which would tell us how many people he thinks will be unemployed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not agree with the Cassandra-like prophecies of the hon. member. I am a little surprised that he wants to dwell so distinctly, in the depth of gloom and doom that he seems to be prescribing. As someone who has some acquaintanceship with the technicalities of projection and economic forescasting, he would know that the kind of precision for which he is asking is not possible, it is absolutely impossible to predict, to the exact month, what the unemployment rates will be. There are far too many factors and variables to take into account. He mentioned some of them himself.
We are certainly subject to variations, whether it is on exchange rates, interest rates, downturns in the international economy, varying degrees of supply and demand rates, programs of intervention that may take place, investment procedures, and while those things can be built into certain kinds of computations on an aggregate scale, I do not think anyone has a scale to pinpoint absolutely that, let us say, on January 15 there will be 973,000 unemployed, and that is why we tend to use percentages, because it is a better indicator of the kind of general patterns that we have to face in the economic forecast. Those patterns and indications were provided for in the statement of the Minister of Finance. I should point out, just to make sure that the record is perfectly clear, that those projections that the present Minister of Finance was making were not quite as severe as those that were predicted by the minister of finance under the previous administration, who was predicting, at that point in time, excess unemployment of 200,000 people, beginning in 1981-82.
1 think that we have been able to scale those down, but I would say to him that until we are able to clarify some of the general economic factors that are affecting this country, particularly in relation to the pricing of energy, which is a very major depressant in terms of job creation, because it vacuums out so much investment capital from other parts of the region, then 1 think we have to be very careful about trying to cite
Employment Tax Credit Act
specific figures because, as he would well know, those figures are picked up very readily and used, and we would not want to create any false sense of panic on the part of people simply by speculating on an area, which is very dangerous.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I believe it is a fair assumption, but I would like to check it out. Does the minister believe that the government has a role to play in the creation of jobs? Does the minister believe in that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, obviously, Mr. Chairman, judging by the actions taken by this government in the past three months of its office, we obviously believe that there is a very important role to play in stimulating employment in this country. There are decisions that have been taken by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in his guaranteeing of the Chrysler loan in order to create tens of thousands of jobs in the automobile industry, the action taken to decide on the fighter aircraft, which will create employment for 15,000 to 20,000 people in the aerospace industry, the decision to negotiate the COLA arrangement in British Columbia to create several thousand jobs in those areas. So we have a major program of stimulus for economic development. My colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, has a budget of over $600 million, which is directly related to the creation of employment in those areas in which there is some degree of inequity or inequality.
That is a very major commitment that we are putting into it, so obviously this government believes that we have a role to play, and we will play that role in a multitude of ways. We will play it in direct job creation, where we can help those who need the help most, where we can target into those groups that have the most severe economic needs. We will also help in a general aggregate sense of creating an economic climate in which employment can take place, and we will do it through our economic development initiatives, such as the ones I have announced. So our commitment is very clear, and 1 think it is one that has been proven out in the first three months of this government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The minister's use of the word "target" is one that we encountered last Monday, in answer to a question of mine previously. It is certainly a clear-cut principle of the employment creation philosophy of this party, that we do, in fact, target employment where it is needed, when it is needed.
If I could back to my original question, I think a rational man, an organized man, who believes in job creation, would believe in creating the jobs when they will be needed most. Surely the minister can guess when the unemployment rate will peak in this country. Is it going to be January, 1981, February, 1981? It is going to be 1982? Surely, in planning for job creation, in a targeted sense, he must have a target as to when we should be creating the most jobs, because that is when we will have the greatest problem. In that context could the minister give us some sense as to when he thinks we are going to have the most difficulty in terms of unemployment?

June 5, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad the hon. member asked that question, because I think it does pertain to the kind of planning that we are doing. As I stated in the House earlier, one of the serious difficulties we faced when we resumed government was the fact that the previous administration had basically wiped out many of the direct job-creation programs. So there was nothing in preparation, nothing available for us to bring to bear on the cycle of unemployment which we face in this country. Certainly, in the historical sense, we know that unemployment peaks, in this country, during the winter months. That is why we had to introduce a program of which the hon. member was, unfortunately, critical. We had to introduce a program in an interim way that could be announced in June, so that it could start in operation in the fall so that it would be fully operative through the months of December, January and February, when seasonal unemployment is at its highest.
As I admitted in the House, we had to put together a program that did not give us the kind of time that we would have liked, simply because the cupboard was bare, there was nothing to bring forward. As a consequence, the programs and the budget and the estimates for that program had some limitations to them.
But to answer that question, that is why we have designed a program, as we have, to begin operation in September of this coming year, to reach its peak in providing specific targets into high unemployment areas beginning throughout the winter months, when unemployment tends to be at its highest.
But I should also like to point out to the hon. member that, in a way, we should not get ourselves lulled into believing that we can simply respond to seasonal variations, because one of the underlying philosophies of our own direct job-creation program is to tackle the hard core unemployment, whether it is in the youth sector or in the sector of people who have a minority status in this country. If you look at the figures, the way the labour market turns around in this country, there is a fair degree of fluctuation and mobility within that market.
The most severe difficulties are faced by those who are, in a sense, permanently unemployed, because they cannot get the first entry into the job market. That is why we are increasingly orienting our own investments and our own practices towards tackling that hard-core problem. It may be only 10 per cent of the young people who are the hard-core unemployed. The rest, eventually, over a period of time, find jobs. That is why we have to target, particularly on training programs, target in particularly on those who need first entry experience.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would just like to follow up on the last comment first. Is the minister telling us that in his department he has research data which suggests it is a characteristic of the young people that makes them hardest to employ? This 10 per cent that he is talking about, are these characteristics inherent to the people, or are people more difficult to employ because of the characteristics of the region?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would say it is some of both. As a trained sociologist, which I believe he is, he would
certainly be aware of the kind of studies and analyses that have been produced in the last several years. Perhaps the most pronounced and comprehensive study was the OECD study, about two years ago, which indicated that the problem of youth unemployment is not just a Canadian problem. It is a problem shared by every country in the industrial world. We are, frankly, facing a product of a population boom which took place, for example, after the Second World War. In fact, in Canada, we have had, unquestionably, the largest growth in the number of young people in the job market, over the last seven or eight years, of any country in the industralized world. It is a problem we share.
As well, as a sociologist, the hon. member would know that the handicaps people face in the job market are partly a product of their own environment. Lack of education is an obvious difficulty for those who grow up in a region where they do not acquire skills or educational capacities, for whatever reason. Sometimes it is a product of geography. Unfortunately and tragically there are regions of our country where there is not much of an economic base upon which to build jobs.
Some of my colleagues in this caucus have brought their constituents to see me. For example, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria brought a group of people to see me who were honest, hard-working, dedicated people. They wanted to work in his region of the country and there was just not the economic base there to provide employment. They spend most of their summers travelling to do agricultural work in Ontario, but when they return to their home areas in New Brunswick, simply there is no work for them. That is one of the reasons why we went into direct job creation, to ensure that they would have opportunities to work if they wanted to do so. The hard core areas of unemployment are products of population problems which are shared industrially throughout the entire world. Partly they are a product of geography and individual deficiencies, sometimes not of a person's own making, such as family characteristics or whatever. In this situation we see substantial changes taking place. That is why we have entered into a very major review of the employment issues of the 1980s.
We have asked for a parliamentary committee to be formed under the chairmanship of the Honourable Warren Allmand. I believe the hon. member will be a member of that committee. It will be an opportunity for parliamentarians to cross this country in order to look at and assess the problems of shortages, and unemployment issues across Canada, in a public manner. We have put together a major task force of my own commission on employment and immigration. We are pulling together people from different departments in the government to begin to understand what changes are taking place in our economic structure, so that we can put together a proper design which will enable the government, provincial government and the private sector to begin to combine their efforts more effectively to meet the new employment demands and requirements of the next decade. In the meantime we have this
June 5, 1980

interim program to make sure we can handle the short-term problems.
That is one of the things 1 felt very strongly about when 1 took over this portfolio. I realized that we had to do a very careful review and analysis of the kinds of things we had to look forward to, so that we could change the programs which required change and put together a package of employment initiatives and partnership within the public and private sectors.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I presume the questioning must shift fairly soon to someone else for a while, and perhaps it will return to me, but after 20 minutes I am becoming increasingly disturbed. Can the minister tell us why he has no officials here? 1 think it is fairly common knowledge throughout government that, next to Statistics Canada, the minister probably has the largest budget for researchers.
I have attempted to identify a couple of very, very basic sets of numbers, but 1 have not been able to get them in 20 minutes. It would be irrational and somewhat irresponsible for the Parliament of Canada to deal with this bill which provides taxpayers' funds for the creation of employment when we have no projected sense. I realize that estimates are estimates, but we have no projected sense of how many unemployed we are dealing with here. Do we really need to create jobs? The minister's rhetoric seems to exceed his knowledge with some frequency, but if he tells us in his rhetoric that he is concerned about targeting employment, giving help to those who need it most, then I think one would expect the minister to be able to tell us the characteristics of those who need the help the most. Is the geographic problem the dominant one that we are dealing with here? Is it characteristics of individuals who are amenable to training?
With the large budget the minister has available to him, surely he could have a couple of officials here who may have better data than the minister is carrying around in his head. How can the minister expect us to approve an expenditure which is unlimited in terms of this bill? According to his own figures, it is at least $100 million. How can he expect us to approve that if we do not know what it is for? What is the dimension of the problem that this piece of legislation is intended to solve?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member if he has been unable to understand what I have said. I have attempted to be very forthcoming with him. I do not quite see the logical connection between having a research budget and having two officials sitting here at a table. If he feels he needs the security blanket of two officials sitting across from him, I would be quite happy to provide them.
In the short time I have been in this ministry, I have made an effort to acquire the information. I think it is a ministerial responsibility to provide it. I am providing it to the hon. member. Unfortunately he does not want to listen to it. If he does not want to listen, there is nothing I can do in my power to make him listen. I am not using rhetoric. I have told him exactly what we expect in the way of unemployment figures. I
Employment Tax Credit Act
have given him the percentages and assessments of the Minister of Finance. I have told him that we see specific areas of real need in the country caused by changes in the population pattern. There are still a large number of young people who will need employment assistance. There are still major initiatives which have to be taken to assist women to come into the work force and to gain more equal salaries for the same kind of work. There are regional variations of very severe kinds. Those are existent matters which are both historical and contemporary. That is the basis upon which the planning is taking place.
I should like to go back to the remarks of the hon. member, who seems to be so absolutely preoccupied about how we will target things. It is curious. When he opened the debate in this House in response to this bill, he claimed that we apparently could not do any targeting with this bill, it was a shotgun approach. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He cannot be arguing that somehow we should be targeting when he is also saying that it is a shotgun approach. We are talking about one means of creating employment, the employment tax credit. It is designed to provide an incentive to the private employer to provide for incremental work. The reason we have combined that with other kinds of measures is that we do not feel there is any one solution to the problem. We need a variety of solutions. We need to be able to orchestrate those solutions. That is why we are providing a combination of measures, so that we can focus in on the problems.
If the hon. member feels insecure, disturbed, and overwrought by the lack of the presence of some public servants on the floor of the House, then 1 would be very glad to provide them. 1 would not want to be the cause of a nervous breakdown of the hon. member for Calgary West, but I would suggest that he is receiving exactly the answers deserving of the kinds of questions he is asking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I live not too far from Mount St. Helens. I think there is a correlation that can be drawn between the eruption we got here and what the people back home have been getting.


Mr. Kempling:: The fallout is just as bad, gas and ashes.


Benno Friesen: Gas and ashes, that is right. I should like to direct a couple of questions to the minister, but I will preface them with a little bit of background. As I understand the measure, it deals with two changes in the UIC program. One is the change in premiums and one is a change in administration or the funding.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You are not on the right bill.


Benno Friesen: Am I not on the right bill?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Does it ever make a difference?


Mr.   de Corneille@: That is just about as relevant as all the other stuff.

June 5, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act


Benno Friesen: That is right. I have been listening to the torrent coming from the minister and 1 could not tell what bill he was on. As the former hon. member for Timiskaming used to say-and J am sure the minister took lessons from him-it really does not matter if one knows nothing about the bill; one can make a real good speech, in fact a better speech, if one knows nothing about it. I will defer until we come to this next bill, but I will be ready for you then, sir.


Mr. Biaikie:: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things on which I would like to seek a response from the minister this evening regarding problems of unemployment for which the employment tax credit bill ostensibly proposes to provide a solution, at least partly.
In my riding of Winnipeg-Birds Hill just last week there were a number of employees of the Canadian National Railway, some 49 at Transcona shops and another five at the Symmington yard, who were laid off their jobs, and there is a similar number scheduled to be laid off in the coming weeks. Indeed there are rumours of even more lay-offs.
1 should like to ask the minister, in view of his concern about unemployment, what the government, and what he in his capacity as minister of employment, are doing about this latest move of the Canadian National Railroad in abandoning its extensive hiring and expansionist intentions of only a few months ago and now proceeding to lay people off? I ask this particularly in view of Canada's high unemployment rate, certainly much higher than any of the statistics being tossed about tonight would indicate: Unemployment is higher than those statistics if we consider the hidden unemployment and the tremendous concentration of unemployment, not just in various regions but in various parts of our cities.
I should like to ask the minister what he thinks himself capable of doing in respect of this latest action of the CNR, taking into account particularly the unfairness of hiring people, creating expectations of permanent employment, only to lay those people off in a short time, facing them again with economic uncertainty. Will the minister undertake to speak with his colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the hon. gentleman in the other place, who may or may not be responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, to see whether the CNR could use this time to catch up on its repair work, repairing all the many grain cars and hopper cars that require repair, continuing the employment of people in this important enterprise, rather than contributing to the unemployment problem we have by allowing these layoffs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member's question is very important, but I am not sure I would judge it as relevant to this bill.
The issue of lay-offs in railway yards is one that would give those of us who live in the Winnipeg area some concern. 1 would ask the hon. member to treat it with some degree of perspective. As long as I have been living in Winnipeg the railways have been laying people off and hiring people. It is a
cyclical industry; it goes up and down according to the season. 1 have not read of massive lay-offs by the railways. If I remember the figures accurately, the railroads in Winnipeg have been very consistent employers with a reasonably stable work force.
If the hon. member is asking what measures I am taking, I would draw his attention to the initiative that we announced only last Friday. Through the co-operation of several of my colleagues we were able to put forward a major proposal for the city of Winnipeg to create substantial renovation and rejuvenation of the core area, including work in some of the railroad yards, both CN and CPR, if that is the choice of the city. This will create several thousand jobs in Winnipeg over the next five or six years. Already we have taken substantial action to provide a major stimulus to the employment situation in Winnipeg.
I would like to thank the hon. member and some of his colleagues in the NDP caucus for their support during the period when we were trying to get the kind of encouragement that was necessary to bring those measures about. This is one significant measure that will have a major and beneficial impact on the employment picture in Winnipeg.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows just from listening to what I had to say that I was not trying to portray any sort of cataclysmic event happening at the CNR, but merely trying to draw his attention to a fact, a situation, in which I think management is making some errors of decision.
We have an opportunity to build up the grain car and hopper fleet of those railroads which are in the habit of saying they do not have the equipment to move the grain. The minute they experience a revenue drop they begin to cut back on their intentions to rebuild their fleets. I think this is something that would merit conversation with the president of the CNR, to discover why they are doing this, whether there might not be alternatives, and whether they might be able to put this time to better use.
My second concern, and it follows on something the minister said, has regard to what was announced last Friday in Winnipeg and, indeed, what was announced on Monday in regard to the employment strategy of the government.
The minister is overplaying the extent to which the announcement he had to make on Friday and, indeed, the announcement of Monday, are going to solve or even come close to solving the problems the city of Winnipeg is experiencing in many different respects. The program announced on Friday involves money, as I understand it, that is not going to come into play until 1981. There is going to be a study first, as if the core area of Winnipeg had not been studied enough, and as though we did not know what kinds of things need to be done there already. The minister in his former capacity presided over many studies, and I presume that if those studies had any quality we can go to them for recommendations on what should be done in the core area of Winnipeg. I think much is being made of little in the rhetoric we are hearing about what was announced on Friday. There has been no articulation of
June 5, 1980

how that money is going to be spent, what programs are to be in place, or any indication of just what form the spending of that money is to take. Until we hear that we cannot make a judgment as to whether, indeed, what was announced last Friday will address itself to the problems of Winnipeg.
Another aspect of the very same problem is related to unemployment in the inner city of Winnipeg. I read in the minister's speech of last Monday something about the Community Services Project, this new program which will do so many good things for the cities in which it is implemented. I suggest to the minister that this is very much a recycling of what existed before, the Canada Works plan. If it is intended to be an improvement of the Canada Works plan, 1 suggest it does not go anywhere near meeting the aspirations of those who have had experience with the Canada Works plan and know the inadequacies thereof.
There was a meeting in Winnipeg during the election. The hon. member for Provencher was there and perhaps he will recall it, at which a group presented recommendations for further employment programs in the inner city. One of the things they asked for was a three-year cycle in respect of any kind of program, whether it was to be called Canada Works or Community Services.
I notice that the three-year cycle of the Community Services Project is a diminishing three-year cycle. It is to be funded fully in the first year, and the percentage of funding is to diminish over the next two years. Certain conditions are attached to the programs to be funded in the first place and whether or not they are to be continued. An example of those conditions is whether they have any possibility of being sustained by user fees in the future, introducing the concept of user fees into social services. The minister should know from his experience in the city of Winnipeg that any program which is asked to be dependent on user fees in the inner city will not address the problems of that particular area. He should know that such a program will not address problems of unemployment.
' We have heard about rates of unemployment of 7 per cent, 8 per cent and 9 per cent. A study done by Winnipeg School Division No. 1 shows that among the adults around Dufferin school in the inner city of Winnipeg there is a 60 per cent unemployment rate. Also in the inner city around William Whyte school there is a 55 per cent unemployment rate, around David Livingston school a 45 per cent unemployment rate, around Norquay school in North Point Douglas there is a 44 per cent unemployment rate, and around Strathcona school across from where I used to work, Robertson House, there is a 39 per cent unemployment rate. There are 28 schools in whose areas there is a 13 per cent or greater rate of unemployment among the adults of the children who attend those schools.
Clearly the program which the minister announced on Monday will not address itself to these sorts of problems, and neither will the employment tax credit program. It is incumbent upon the minister not to mislead the public and say that
Employment Tax Credit Act
these programs will solve our problems, particularly when there is nothing within them which is geographically specific to address the particular problems of the inner city. For instance, the whole Community Services project is designed to continue the very problems which people for years have been asking be corrected in those kinds of employment programs.
What kind of problems should be corrected? We must get rid of certain problems and introduce programs so that there will be some security, so that people who embark upon jobs will know whether or not they will have that job next year at the same time, when the grant must be renewed. I notice that the community development aspect of the program is for a term of one year. This does nothing to eliminate the insecurity of working on these particular programs.
In the one program which is of a longer duration, three years, people will still have to look for other moneys every year because of the diminishing effect. The minister should know the problems which the community school's programs in the core area of Winnipeg had when it had to find money because the provincial government and the school board began to pull out. He should know the work that went into getting United Way funding for that particular program. This is exactly the kind of burden which the minister is laying on every project under the auspices of this Community Services project.
It is a grossly inadequate answer to the kinds of concerns which have been placed before the minister in his capacity as minister and in his capacity before he was elected, concerns of which the minister should be well aware. These are problems which have been apparent for years. I invite the minister's defence of these particular programs, and ask him not to indulge in the kind of hyperbole to which we have become accustomed in listening to him describe his initiatives. Would the minister tell us how these particular programs will solve the problems of the 60 per cent and 55 per cent of the people who are unemployed in some of the areas around the inner city schools?
I hope that the minister will not try to tell us about the great things which will happen because of the announcement that he made last Friday, because it is not clear, and it will not be clear for some time, whether that money will be used to redevelop the core area of Winnipeg for the benefit of the low income citizens of Winnipeg, the tenants and the people who inhabit that area, or whether it is to be channelled according to the dictates of the 1CEC on city council. The things which have just occurred to me that I would like to say about the ICEC, Mr. Chairman, would be unparliamentary, and 1 had to pause for a moment. It is not clear how this money will be spent and whether it will in any way be beneficial to the people who are unemployed to this great extent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the members of the committee if this is beginning to sound like Winnipeg night in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill brings up some very interesting questions about job initiatives and how they might affect the inner core of Winnipeg, an area about which he and I have had concern for several years. I find it somewhat strange that the hon.

June 5, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
member is attacking me and my government on its great failures after we have been in government for only three months, for not solving the unemployment problems of inner city Winnipeg.


Miss Jewett:: For 12 years.


Lloyd Axworthy: I was just about to say, Mr. Chairman, I have always taken the posture that each new government starts afresh in its approach, and that we cannot be laid down with the sins of our forefathers. But before members opposite get too agitated, I would like to remind the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and his colleagues that we had an NDP government in Manitoba for eight years. During those eight years I did not see the unemployment rate go down one percentage point, or any great improvement in the inner city of Winnipeg. They were there and they had the opportunities, the commitments and the resources.
1 would also like to remind the hon. member that the initiative that we took on Friday was the first major social economic initiative in the inner city that has been taken by a major government, including the hon. member's provincial government which was NDP for eight years.
1 do not wish to debate the point, but I think that it is important that the hon. member understand and that we exchange thoughts in a reasonable way. The problems of hard core unemployment will not be solved overnight. I did not say that they would be in my statement in Winnipeg on Friday, nor in my statement in this House on Monday. 1 said that we must work at these problems with all the resources at our command, but I did not say that they would be solved right away. These problems have been with us far too long and in far too many ways.
Any government is restricted by the kinds of resources that it can bring to bear, because there are demands from across the country, not just from the inner city of Winnipeg, but from the northeast corner of New Brunswick, the Gaspe of Quebec, northern Ontario and Athabasca. There are unemployment problems of a hard core nature which have been around for years because of the very nature of the economy and the geography of our country. I can tell hon. members that I will work as hard as 1 can.
I said earlier in response to questions raised by the hon. member for Calgary West that in the three months of this government we have taken decisions on the northeast coal in British Columbia, on the fighter aircraft, on Chrysler, and a number of other decisions. We debated this afternoon a bill on fisheries enhancement to raise the opportunities for people in the maritimes. We are working at the problems in a very consistent and enduring way. But if the hon. member from Winnipeg-Birds Hill thinks that we somehow can wave a magic wand and unemployment will vanish overnight, then he is living in a dream world. I suggest that he come back down to earth where we are and work on the problems in a very realistic manner.


Pauline Jewett: Well then, cut out the rhetoric.


Benno Friesen: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, did I understand the minister to say the fisheries enhancement program which he announced yesterday?


Lloyd Axworthy: No.


Benno Friesen: The day before yesterday?


Lloyd Axworthy: No.


Benno Friesen: Within the last one, two or three days. Did I understand him to say that that program is restricted to the east coast?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to mislead the hon. member. We are not talking about that bill either. We are talking about the bill which was given second reading today and which was introduced by the Minister of Fisheries, to provide increases in loan agreements. 1 understand, having sat in the House this afternoon and listening to the debate from both sides, that it will apply to anywhere there is fish.


Benno Friesen: That is not fisheries enhancement. He doesn't know what he is talking about.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, nothing is more amusing and more cynical than the Minister of Employment and Immigration rising and disowning everything which the Liberal party has done prior to his election in Winnipeg in May, 1979. Who was the major contact person, the major voice of the Fiberal party in Winnipeg? Who was the person who told the Fiberal party what decisions to make with regard to Winnipeg, if it was not the Minister of Employment and Immigration? Maybe this is the beginning of a trip down the road to Damascus because we now find him getting up and disowning everything which the Fiberal party did before his election. He is saying, "Well, 1 admit that things were rough, but now 1 am in cabinet and things will be different from now on."
I would also remind the minister that there were major initiatives taken in the inner city by the NDP government when it was in power. The minister says I live in a dream world. I make no apologies for dreaming about what we could do in the city of Winnipeg and other inner cities in this country if we had the political will and imagination that is so desperately lacking in this legislation.
1 would remind the minister that the NDP government initiated the community schools program; the NDP government built housing in the inner city, and the NDP government did a number of things within the inner city that the minister was wont to defend when the Progressive Conservative government of Manitoba that came to office in 1977 started to dismantle them. Has he forgotten what he used to say in the legislature, Mr. Chairman? It seems that his memory is indeed short.
I submit that all this hoopla about announcements on Monday, and particularly announcements on Friday, is meant to cover up the fact that the Minister of Employment and
June 5, 1980

Immigration was unable to live up to the expectations he deliberately created in the city of Winnipeg in the spring of 1979, prior to the May 22 election, about rail relocation. Now he flies to Winnipeg, saying, "We could not get rail relocation, but how is $50 million or how is $180 million?" depending on which paper you read in Winnipeg. That is what was really going on last Friday afternoon.
Instead of accomplishing rail relocation and instead of living up to the hopes that were deliberately created in the futile hope of defeating members like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-trying to create some political subterfuge in the inner city and trying to garner Liberal candidates from the unsuspecting group of citizens who were trying to defend their community against the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass-that is what was really going on in the spring of 1979. All the hoopla last Friday afternoon was designed to save the political face of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and put the ball back in the city court. Perhaps that is where it belongs. He is certainly not the only culprit in this drama. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is what has been going on in all these announcements made by the minister. 1 invite his response to my submission. We will see how short his memory is on other subjects.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the NDP is now taking the position that a $50 million investment is simply hoopla. 1 think taxpayers will be glad to know that they have such disregard for the public purse, such disregard for the most major initiative taken in the city of Winnipeg in the last several decades.
I want now to respond to this total distortion that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill is trying to perpetrate. I am surprised at him; he is not usually prone to that kind of parliamentary tactic.
Just to make sure that the record is straight, and that he has things straight, Mr. Chairman, the announcement that was made concerning Winnipeg's rail relocation made it clear that the federal government was prepared to live up to its financial commitment if there was a decision to take relocation. That is the only decision we could make. Because of constitutional requirements we are not in a position to dictate priorities to local governments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You did not tell the people that last spring.


Lloyd Axworthy: The only question put to us was to know if we were prepared to pay our fair share of the cost. On Friday we were prepared to pay our fair share of the cost, but we cannot do that unilaterally. We depend upon the co-operation and participation of other levels of government.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill is telling me that he is prepared to ignore totally other levels of government, to disregard totally the constitutional responsibilities of the BNA Act, and is prepared to forget about any spirit of co-operation, that does not say much for his approach and his philosophy. It sounds very autocratic to me-he will get his way regardless; he does not care what the other levels of
Employment Tax Credit Act
government think; he is not prepared to work with them. I point out to the hon. member that we have to work the way the country is constructed, not remake it to suit anybody's illusions. There was a commitment. The money may still be spent on rail relocation because there was an agreement to study that as a possibility.
I see the hon. member who represented Elmwood in the provincial legislature in the House. He stood up in that legislature and said, "Forget relocation; our party does not stand for that." He was the worst critic, Mr. Chairman. The things he had to say about me shocked me, and made me embarrassed. The language he used, Mr. Chairman!


An hon. Member:: Poor Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: It touched my sensitive nature that the hon. member from Elmwood was prepared to reject completely any concept of relocation, and spoke on behalf of the NDP caucus in the provincial legislature on that issue. I think that was unfortunate. I regret that a political ally of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill was prepared to take such an outlandish position. It helped destroy the spirit of co-operation that we were trying to build and which we have succeeded in building through our initiative. The federal, provincial and municipal governments are now working in a spirit of harmony for the betterment of the city of Winnipeg.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to advise the hon. minister that the last speaker for the NDP was correct. Unemployment under the NDP in Saskatchewan did go down; thousands of people from Saskatchewan moved to Alberta!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: That shows what free enterprise can do because that is the way they are moving in that part of the country.
1 should like to ask one or two questions and I should like them answered as simply and as accurately as the minister can manage. The reason I say that is that I think if there is an employer listening to this debate or watching it on television tonight, nothing has been said that would indicate to him how he can benefit under this legislation. If I were an unemployed person with a hungry wife and youngsters living on welfare, nothing has been said tonight that would give me very much hope.
Surely the purpose of the bill is to provide employment for some people. 1 do not think any bill can solve all the problems of unemployment, and it is ridiculous to say that it will. It will take a combination of things to get this country working again. May I ask the minister if there is any geographical area in the country where the bill is not applicable?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, before I correctly answer the hon. member's question, I would point out to him that in Manitoba we think somewhat differently. When the NDP was in power in Saskatchewan people left, and when we elected a Tory government they left in even greater numbers to go to Alberta. So it works both ways, Mr. Chairman.
1814

June 5, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
To answer the question, Mr. Chairman, 1 must say there is no geographic limitation at all. The bill applies right across Canada. The only requirement is that it must be an employer who makes the application. In the initial evaluation we found that about 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the applications are from employers with less than 20 employees, so it tends to be the smaller employers who use the program with the greatest frequency. This means that certain regions of the country use it less because they do not have the employment base, so that there is some regional variation. It is applicable across the country, however.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now let us suppose there is a grocer who would like to extend his business and wants to hire one or two more people. What steps would he take to derive benefits from this legislation, and what would those benefits be?


Lloyd Axworthy: I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that one of the important provisions of the bill is that any applicant must demonstrate that there will be an actual increase in the work force. It simply cannot be a replacement of workers. There must be some demonstration that there is a base of employees that has been in existence for some period of time and that the employer wants to add additional numbers to that. What is then required is that the employer is able to get a benefit under this bill of anywhere from $1.50 to $2 an hour in terms of a tax credit against his taxes for that year. If he does not have actual taxes in that tax year, he can spread the benefits over a five-year period.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, how would that grocer go about it? Does he have to get approval for additional staff that he is going to hire, or does he simply do so and then fill it in on his tax forms at the end of the year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the easiest way for that grocer or any other employer is to contact our regional office. In the province of Alberta, for example, we have close to 13 employment commission offices. If they were contacted they would be very glad to send the forms, and provide any counsel or advice that they would require under the program.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, would the minister enlarge on that? I am wondering if the grocer has to get approval before he comes under this program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The grocer and the employer would have to be approved. They would have to submit the application. It would be evaluated by our office. If it met the criteria and the conditions, then it would be approved, but there are certain standards that they would have to meet.
I >vould be very pleased to send the hon. member a package of materials, with the application forms and instructions, so that he can look at them himself and use the material for any referrals. I will send that to him in the next day or two.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Who actually gives the approval? Is it the district office, the minister or, to put it move broadly, does the hon. member in the House of Commons representing that particular area have anything to do with it? Who actually gives the approval?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the approvals would be departmental approval. Because we are dealing with several thousands of applications, it is not something for which the member of Parliament has an advisory capacity. We are using that mainly in connection with job creation because it is community oriented. This is something where there is a direct contractual arrangement between the employer and the commission of employment and immigration. They would submit the application. It would be evaluated and approved at the regional level and then monitored from that point on. The only other criteria that I should mention is that we would then be in a position to refer employees from our registry to that employer.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one or two short comments. As I believe the minister would know, we have a difficult problem in getting employees to work on farms. Many of our farmers are really up against it. They get frustrated when they read of the number of people who are unemployed in cities such as Calgary, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Winnipeg and so on, and yet they cannot get anyone to work on their farms. Some of it is specialized labour because a farmer does not want just any Tom, Dick or Harry, or Mary, Ann or Josephine to operate his $40,000 tractor. But a lot of it is pretty simple work, such as fencing and looking after turkeys, etc..


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Is there provision made for a farmer to come under this program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to respond to the hon. member's latter point, but 1 will not!
The agricultural area is not covered by this bill because of the tremendous seasonal variation and the work that is required. But I would suggest to the hon. member that there are programs under our department dealing with agricultural workers. We do set up agricultural pools. He probably knows that within his own province of Alberta there is a very active student exchange program for agricultural students, where we bring in a large number of students from European countries, in particular, to work on farms in western Canada. But this particular program would not apply in that case because it is much too difficult to measure and evaluate whether it is incremental work or additional work or that it would continue, say, for the full 46 or 50-week period.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned about the exchange program bringing students over from Denmark, Sweden, and so on. This is an excellent program. Many of these young people come for a definite period of time. It is quite frustrating for the farmer when he gets a real good lad
June 5, 1980

from Denmark or Sweden, and there are some excellent lads who have come from those countries who understand farming and who are a real asset to any farmer, but then they have to go home. Many of them would like to stay here and I think they would make excellent citizens. I would urge the minister, because this comes under his jurisdiction in the immigration branch, that his department be more tolerant in allowing these excellent young people to stay in Canada. They are an asset to this country. I know of two or three who have had to go back. The farmer was left really helpless in a couple of cases because he could not find help, and the young men wanted to stay and become Canadians. I would urge the minister concerning that particular aspect, but I realize that I am a little off course with regard to this particular act.
There are one or two comments I would like to make following the information which the minister has given us about employees getting into this program. Every time a small shopkeeper hires one more employee, we reduce the number of unemployed in this country and help make that individual and his family happier, and we create a better country. If we can get thousands and thousands of our small shops hiring one or two employees, expanding to that degree, and many of them can do it with a little help, then we will make a dint in the unemployment statistics.
I would suggest that the procedure of coming into the program be kept as simple as possible in order to keep control of it, and that we concentrate on trying to get more and more of our small shopkeepers-many of whom are working 12 to 14 hours a day, who would like to cut down on their own hours-to hire another employee. This could be done if they could just get a little help at the financial end to do it. It is surprising that, once they hire another employee, the business increases. Many times they are able to keep that employee. 1 think that this program can do a lot of good. 1 would suggest that it be administered with as much simplicity as possible so that people will not get frustrated and discouraged when they are trying to get approval for the hiring of employees and the expansion of their business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister be kind enough to enlighten the House on how farmers can take advantage of any program which is a part of his portfolio? He mentioned that there were programs within his department and within his jurisdiction of which farmers could take advantage. Will he tell us to which programs he refers and how does one go about taking advantage of them?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out in the answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Bow River, farmers can use this program if they are talking about 12-month employment. If it is simply the seasonal variation, part-time worker, then they are not applicable. If it is full-time additional work, then they are available to him.
The other way in which we assist farm workers is through the departments agricultural pools. Those are most common in
Employment Tax Credit Act
southern Ontario where they have a very strong demand for seasonal workers. I think this also takes place in my own province of Manitoba where there is a very strong demand for agricultural workers in the Portage la Prairie area in market gardening. We organize agricultural polls. At the same time we are prepared to bring in offshore workers on certain occasions, or workers from other provinces and we undertake to help in the mobility in those kinds of areas. Those are the kinds of things which the organizers in each of the regional offices implement.


Fred Alward McCain: You are not speaking there of money that is part of or in lieu of wages for training. You are speaking of the department of employment seeking people to fill jobs, yes for agriculture, but you do not spend any money on that other than going through the exercise of aiding to locate the individual who will then be employed on the farm. In terms of grant money which is going to help every other industry, do you have any programs, 12 months or otherwise, whereby there will be money spent in aid of training of agricultural help? If so, under what act does it come and how is it arranged?


Lloyd Axworthy: First, Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should be too disparaging about the value of the ability of our department to act as the mechanism for making sure that farm workers are able to go where they are most needed.


Fred Alward McCain: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am not being disparaging of the department. I merely defined the field in which they worked. That does not include supplements of income or income training money in any part of that program. In what part of the program, under what act and what regulation is it possible for a farmer to employ somebody and have you pay part of the cost of that employee as training for a farmer?
I am asking the question in ignorance. I do not know the answer. The minister mentioned that they do help farmers. 1 want to know if they help them in this way and, if so, under what program.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member. I was just saying that 1 think in many ways there is a substantial financial value to the farmers by the services we provide. What I did indicate in answer to the hon. member for Bow River is that they can use this program as long as they are talking about a full-time employee over an extended period. If it is simply a matter of a seasonal worker coming in for a short period of time, this program obviously will not apply, if there are, as they say there are, certainly in our part of our country, very large farms with major numbers of employees and they see an opportunity to add incremental workers-and 1 would point out this is not a training program, it is an employment program-that means they are simply adding an incremental worker.
Obviously the experience of that work will be of some assistance, but that is the way in which we can directly help in

June 5, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
the using of the tax credit program, namely, a farm operation that is able to cover that kind of more extended work opportunities, not the seasonal variations which most farmers experience.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, applicants for assistance in training programs in my constituency have applied for as few as one person and they have been denied any assistance, while applicants who are applying for anywhere from five to 100 have on occasion been given assistance under legislation of this type. I would like to know why it would be that, let us say, a tradesman such as a machinist who wants to bring somebody in and train him, a tradesman who is properly qualified and has his licence, that he would not be eligible when he applies for a single person.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if the hon. member would like to put down the exact case and circumstance, we will look into it. Under our training programs we have the Critical Skills Training Program which is designed to provide major incentives to employers for high technology skills. It is a program that is applied across the country, as I announced in my statement on Monday. We just added an additional $10 million to it to bring it up to standards, but that is for high technology jobs. Most of the other training programs under the Canada Manpower Training Act are designed for institutional training. We buy positions, in effect, in the community colleges and institutions run by provincial governments. What we do is pay the allowance of the applicant for them and we provide certain support for those institutions to continue.
The actual training is offered by the provincial community college or vocational college system. We buy places with them and then they refer to our employment offices those who apply for them. That is the way the system works. If the hon. member is suggesting that we look at a special program for the training of agricultural workers-


Fred Alward McCain: I said machinists.


Lloyd Axworthy: If someone is to be trained as a machinist, there is certainly every opportunity through our training programs for them to acquire those particular kinds of skills, but up to this point in time the major emphasis has been through the institutional system. I would just say from the figures that offhand we have 240,000 to 250,000 participants in that training program on an annual basis, going at different time periods. We have committed well over $800 million of this government to training programs. With regard to their ability to work on farms as machinists, there is certainly no limitation or restriction whatsoever.


Fred Alward McCain: I am glad to hear that, because in practice it has not worked that way. The employer who might need an individual person has had great difficulty in obtaining an apprentice or a new body to enter into the machine shop trade in our area. Since the minister referred to its value to the constituency of Madawaska-Victoria, I hope it will extend all over New Brunswick and that there will be additional latitude
extended to employers who want one man at a time. That is very important.
It is also important that there be some very careful guidance supplied by the offices of employment. I received a phone call only today with respect to two people who have applied for a short training course which is supported by the department. Both people work for the same employer, both applied for the same course, and both put in the same application. One received the assistance, the other has been asked to refund it.
There is something wrong. This is a very gross misunderstanding between two people who have gone through the same course to get exactly the same training and exactly the same help. I will be writing to the minister. I hope we can resolve this problem because it is just a matter of some misunderstanding, some regulation, and some guy has made a decision in the department which is very discriminatory to one against the other. I hope the minister will be able to consider it.
1 would like to ask the minister, in consideration of the work of his department, if he would give some thought to a variation in the decision-making process and in the allocation of funds in the make-work projects under both Canada Works and Young Canada Works.
I have written to the minister with regard to some applications made in my constituency, applications which stood for the long-term good of the young people of the community. The applications were made by new applicants who found themselves under difficult circumstances for a particular period of time. They have been rejected for various reasons. I would point out to the minister that when these applications passed over my desk, I inquired how much input 1 would have as a member and as to any influencing of the decision. I was advised virtually none, that the discretionary power, if any, would rest in the hands of the minister, that the selective committee of the make-work branch of his department would pass on these, make the decision, and make recommendations to the minister.
I made my representations on behalf of some which I thought should be considered, after I was advised that they were precluded from being eligible. One, for example, is the development of an athletic facility in a town where they are doing an outstanding job and could have used some student help this year very advantageously. It was decided that because the work was menial, it would not be proper to ask students to do that work. Second, and this disturbs me, it was decided on information from other than the sponsors that the work was not necessary. With no communication with the sponsor, the project was rejected. I approached the staff of the minister's office and appealed to the people who made the decision before it arrived on the minister's desk.
I am particularly concerned about the status of the member of Parliament in this decision-making process. The minister's Liberal predecessor had established-and I am sorry it was abolished; that was not right-a ministerial advisory board drawn from the constituency which knew the constituency and,
June 5, 1980

in particular in rural constituencies, the community. It made very sound recommendations both to the minister and to the member. I respected those recommendations totally when they were made. Those boards have disappeared. This has now come into the ministerial office.
I have been advised by an applicant-not in my constituency; otherwise I would be much more angry than 1 am at the moment-that a letter has come from the minister's office to say that the member involved did not recommend this project and therefore he is not getting anything. Where that letter came from I do not know and I did not see it, but it was a rather bona fide source. Where there is a little smoke, there is bound to be some fire. I do not know how those letters came out, but some did. 1 do not want to get caught in that bind, but I give the minister notice that I am sending him a letter. If it did not go out today, it will certainly go out first thing in the morning. It pertains to five applications for Young Canada Works projects which would have very long-term and lasting social effects for the benefit of young people, all of which were declined in spite of the strongest recommendations I could make.
What I would like to know is whether there is any possibility that the minister will add to the regulatory structure of the make-work project that very pertinent and badly needed regulation, that one of the things which must be considered in the awarding of funds to make work projects is whether they will be of long-term beneficial use to the communities or groups served by the expenditure of public funds for, let us say, the improvement of a playground on the ongoing operation of a young people's camp whether sponsored by a church, a Kinsmen Club or whatever. 1 am referring to very long-term benefits. Would the minister give that serious consideration? At the moment it can be precluded by existing regulations, and is being precluded in my constituency.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that that is exactly what the intention of our government is under the new Canada Development Program I announced on Monday. We felt that not only should we be creating employment but also that that employment should be attached to some very important and significant priorities and objectives such as restoration of communities, conservation and what-not.
Furthermore, what we have established is a system whereby each of the regions will be able to have a high degree of choice and selection of what those priorities are. They will not be made on a national basis, but we have given clear instructions to our regional officers that they should consult with local, provincial and community organizations and authorities and private employers to blueprint a work program or training program which is particularly applicable to their own regions, and that they will have the opportunity to design that program within those kinds of criteria.
I also tell the hon. member that there is a further safeguard to that. I announced that we would re-introduce the ministerial advisory group per constituency. 1 too regret that they were cancelled by the previous government. 1 think it was a mistake.
Employment Tax Credit Act
1 think many hon. members opposite also know it was a mistake to do that because members of Parliament and the advisory groups played a very important role. I apologize to the hon. member.
When I took over this ministry in early March, the summer youth program was already well advanced. All we could do under that circumstance was simply offer the opportunity to individual members of Parliament to advise or recommend on those applications. We did not have enough time to re-establish the advisory groups. The time was just too short, so we simply had to rely upon those recommendations.
With respect to the particular projects the hon. member is talking about, if the hon. member felt that they were overlooked, 1 would be glad to review them. I cannot promise that they will be funded, but there is a circumstance whereby in some cases we have awarded grants to projects and, for one reason or another, they may not be able to carry the projects forward, and the money comes back. If there is a second circulation of that money, we then may be in a position to review those particular applications. I will welcome the hon. member's letter, but my parliamentary secretary, who was very much responsible for looking after that part of the operations, says the kind of letter he refers to would not have gone out because he remembers the application and can say that the hon. member recommended most of the projects.
The reason some were not selected was simply that there was not enough money to go around. We had to allocate according to the resources we had. As the hon. member knows, there was about $110 million in the summer youth program, and when you divide that evenly across the country, you cannot satisfy all the demands. That would be one reason. I am certainly prepared to review it, but I can assure the hon. member that the projects which will be selected will be according to local priorities. Second, there will be an advisory group in place with a constituency allocation in every constituency to ensure that the member of Parliament and that selection group can reflect those local concerns.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not sat very long beside the Minister of Agriculture but he certainly has brought with him the deft ability to avoid absolutely answering questions which are asked. I am going to ask my question very directly. Will the minister inject into the regulatory structure under which the decision-making process is governed that the value to the community or the service rendered by the applicant must be appraised as part of the decision-making process in the awarding of the money? That is not necessarily the guideline. Other regulations such as the benefit to the employed student may be prior to the benefit to the community for which he would be employed under the project. Do 1 make my point clear?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


Fred Alward McCain: If that regulation were injected into the structure, or even if a ministerial letter were to go out for the guidance of the selecting procedures and particularly for the

June 5, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
civil servant structure of it, stating that the benefit to the community must have high priority as part of the selection process, the ones which I find now denied all would have been approved. However, by virtue of other regulations they were cast out of hand without consideration of this value. Will the minister take that into serious consideration and issue such a letter, or have a change in the regulation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 do not think there is any disagreement between the hon. member and 1. 1 hate to read from my own words of wisdom, but just to assure the hon. member, I made the following statement on Monday. 1 announced three principles upon which the job-creation program would be based, and I quote:
The second principle upon which today's measures are based is the recognition that employment must have continuing and genuine value.
I went on to announce that that value will be set according to very specific priorities and that those priorities will be judged based on the worth of the project to the community. To check to make sure that happens and that it is not just a regulatory instruction but in fact will be implemented, we will have the advisory group, which is the best way of ensuring that an assessment of what is really of great concern and of great value to a community can be introduced into the evaluation. So we have built in a number of safeguards to ensure exactly what the hon. member is asking, and I think he will find, as much as an imperfect world allows the system to work, that it will work according to those criteria.


The Chairman:: The hon. member's time has almost expired.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, 1 just want to give one example. The Woodstock branch of the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded applied for assistance to build a workshop. The only reason I can determine that that application was rejected was that menial work was involved and that they would only be painting and driving nails. That is the type of regulatory structure I want to get out of. I think the minister does too. I cannot think of a better group than that group in Woodstock New Brunswick, which is working so hard for the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded. That application will be included in the letter which I am sending.
My time is up, but I plead with the minister that if there are additional moneys which are not spent, or if there is anything the minister can allocate to these from any other source, I think these are special cases. I think the regulatory structure should not force them through the griddle of selective exercises long before it gets to the minister's desk. I think the minister would have approved all five of them had he been making the decision, and I say that sincerely.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I could not begin to make a few comments without making some reference to that somewhat snide remark by the hon. member for Bow River when he suggested that the reason there is such low unemployment in Saskatchewan is that people from Saskatchewan are leaving to go to Alberta. The hon. member surely knows that that is not true. If he can read, and if he looks at the reports which are
made by Statistics Canada, the hon. member will know that the only province in this country which has lost population or which has had a net decrease in population in the last two years is the province of Manitoba, which, unfortunately, has had a Conservative government since 1977. Last year, the last year for which we have figures, according to Statistics Canada the province of Manitoba lost 20,000 people.
I hope the hon. member for Bow River is not attributing the prosperity which his province enjoys purely to the present Conservative government or to the former Social Credit government, about which he knows a great deal more than I do, because surely the hon. member knows that provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, which has an NDP government, are doing extremely well, not because of the kind of government they have-although, of course, government actions can help or hinder prosperity-but mainly because they have tremendous resources which are now needed to a great extent in all parts of the world.
Manitoba, at the moment, is a have-not province, and I would not suggest, for a moment, that an NDP government or a Liberal government could make Manitoba as prosperous as Saskatchewan or Alberta. But what we have seen in Manitoba, with a Conservative government, is a very sharp slowdown in the economy, and more unemployment than Manitoba has had since before World War II.
We have seen a Conservative government which was elected largely by convincing the people of Manitoba that they had done too much, and that a Conservative government would get the economy moving in Manitoba by leaving it to the private sector, not having government interference.
We have seen them, in the last three months, suddenly have a conversion. Suddenly they are prepared to spend money. Suddenly they are prepared to invest with private industry and in the development of mines.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Bow River that he look at what is happening in Manitoba, that he look at a daily newspaper like the Winnipeg Tribune-which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, in support of the NDP; indeed, in all my years, it has been in support of the Conservative party-and see the kinds of reports that they have been publishing lately about what has happened to Manitoba universities, and about what has happened to Manitoba hospitals under a Conservative government.
I want to say to the minister that I wish he would not be so partisan, I wish he would not be so enthusiastic about the Liberal party that he could forget all the things that he saw before he came here. I am not going to suggest, for a moment, that the NDP government of Manitoba solved all the problems of the inner city, or anything else, but the minister cannot help but know, because he is not blind, that there are few, if any, cities in Canada in which he will see as many senior citizens housing, retired people, living usually with only their pension, living in comfort, in up-to-date apartments, and paying a very small rent.
June 5, 1980

The minister will say, I am sure, that the bulk of the money came from the federal government. Of course it did, as it does for all housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: But until the NDP government came to power-and the minister knows this-there was no public housing, no senior citizens housing built at all.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not true. There was senior citizens housing.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the member says it is not true. On another occasion I will bring the exact figures here. I am speaking from memory, but I am 95 per cent certain-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 do not really want to get into a debate, but I think it has to be made clear that if the hon. member wants to make a statement that there was no senior citizens housing prior to the election of the NDP government in 1973, the facts simply do not bear that out.


David Orlikow: in fact I am speaking from memory, but on another occasion 1 will bring the actual figures. There were less than 1,000 units of public housing, or senior citizens housing before 1969, when the NDP formed the government. In the period from 1969 on, there were more than 10,000 units. I, for one, never thought it, did not think then and do not think now, that my own government did as much as it could have. But they did make substantial improvements in the inner core of the city. The minister knows that the NDP government began projects like the Winnipeg Centre project which is, at the present time, training 50 people in the inner core of the city, most of whom are natives, to be teachers, something we never saw in Manitoba, or probably in any of the other provinces, until the last two years.
Mr. Chairman, what bothers me about this bill, and what bothered me about the minister's statement on Monday, is, not that they are necessarily bad in themselves, but in his enthusiasm it seems to me that the minister creates an impression among people-if they take him seriously-that these kinds of projects-and the minister says, and he is right, that we should not expect there to be a single simple solution to the problem of unemployment that is correct, but we have a right, and the people of Canada have a right, to know what the government's over-all objectives are, the government's over-all assessment of the problems we are going to face, and how the government expects to deal with those problems.
When one looks at the actual scope of the problem, one can only be struck by the smallness of the government, the meanness and the niggardliness of the government's response to what is the most serious problem of unemployment that this country has faced since before World War II.
The latest figure we have for unemployment is that 7.5 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. Around 900,000 are unemployed. Economic research organizations, such as the C. D. Howe Institute and the Conference Board, estimated that the present rate of unemployment, the present rate of 7.5 per
Employment Tax Credit Act
cent, would rise this year to 8.3 per cent, because they could see several months ago that the United States was facing a recession. What we saw in the last month or so is that the recession in the United States and in Canada is going to be much more serious than most people expected.
The minister surely knows that in the United States there are some 250,000 unemployed auto workers. The minister surely knows that in Canada there are 30,000 auto workers unemployed. The minister surely knows that sales of north American cars this last month were down by something over 20 per cent in both Canada and the United States.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thirty-one per cent.


David Orlikow: That has a ripple effect. Because automobiles are not being sold, and therefore, not being produced, the rubber industry will slow down, the glass industry will slow down, the plastics industry will slow down, the iron and steel industries will slow down, and this is the reality.
Today in the Toronto Globe and Mail the business columnist quotes Wood Gundy, certainly not an NDP organization-


An hon. Member:: A friend of the NDP.


David Orlikow: Not an NDP-sided organization, a very respected financial institution. It predicted that unemployment this year in Canada will reach 9 per cent.
So I say, Mr. Chairman, we have a right, the people of Canada have a right to know what is this government, which was elected largely because it told the people of Canada that the go-slow policies of the Conservative government, which was in power for such a few months, were the wrong policies, and that they would get this country moving, planning to do.
We see in this bill which we are discussing today this employment tax credit act, I suppose $100 million. We see the announcement the minister made on Monday.


An hon. Member:: Friday.


David Orlikow: Whatever it was, $160 million, whatever it was. Let us take the minister at his word. We have the right to ask the minister a question. This is not the only thing which the government is doing, that is, the employment tax credit bill, and the statement he made on Monday about programs to provide job opportunities is part of it. What are the other parts? When the year 1980 comes to an end and the government has had an opportunity to put into effect all the programs which it has either announced or is now planning, what will we see? What will the unemployment rate be?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Why ask him?


David Orlikow: I would like to know what the minister has to say about this. The minister ought to ignore the implied suggestions of some Conservative members of Parliament that unemployment is not very serious, that there are jobs out

June 5, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
there, and all the rest of the arguments we hear so frequently from backbenchers in that party. Unemployment is a very serious problem. It is a serious problem for people who have been employed for ten or more years in the automobile or forest industry. It is a serious problem for the thousands of young people who are finishing schools or universities and cannot find jobs. I and the people of Canada would like to know what is the total package. What are the plans of the government? What do they think will happen as a result of their plans? How many unemployed will there be by the end of this year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, many of the questions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North were presented earlier on in the discussions. I will briefly summarize the answers I made at that time. To begin with, as I said, we are presently engaged in a major review of the employment requirements in Canada in the next decade and how we can best answer them. We have established a parliamentary committee to look at that. It will be composed of members from all sides of the House. We have established a major task force in our department.
As I indicated in my statement, 1 hope to have a paper available which can be presented and tabled in Parliament by the end of this year, and then we could have a major discussion about the employment strategies which should be followed. Very many changes are taking place. In the last ten years we have been relying upon ideas about job creation at which I want to have a new look. I intend to have a new look at them. We will welcome the participation of the hon. member in that parliamentary committee, so that we can come to grips with many of the new changes which are taking place.
He mentioned the problem of industrial dislocation which is taking place in the automobile industry. I assure the hon. member that we are presently meeting with the UAW-and have over the past several weeks-to work out programs to develop income support and assistance. We have had very cordial relationships with UAW in working out those common problems. But this is a new problem which has never been experienced in the industrial heartland before. We are aware of it, and we want to provide a solution which has been worked out with the unions and employers involved. That is what we are engaging in right now.
I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at a new strategy. We will be consulting with a wide variety of organizations. If he is the member from his caucus who sits on this parliamentary committee, then he will have a full opportunity to travel across Canada and hear the briefs and representations from various organizations. He can apply his own wisdom and experience to the problem. This is something we intend to do. In the meantime, as I have said, we are faced with a very major problem of creating work in the short-term, so that we have something available for Canadians while this review is taking place. That is why we announced the programs on Monday.
They are not necessarily the total strategy, but they are indicators of the kind of direction in which we would like to go, the kind of incentives we are offering employers to provide
work for women in non-traditional work. There is increasing emphasis upon training programs, particularly the additional $10 million which is a 50 per cent increase in that program for native people to begin working on native projects. Those are the kinds of areas we want to go into.
We are establishing an experimental program of local economic development. It will have 15 to 18 to 20 pilot projects across Canada. They will provide long-term jobs and economic development across Canada. We could not get into a massive program of that kind until we saw how it actually worked. But we put enough money into our spending to provide a wide variety of long-term community economic development programs in communities across the country. As we evaluate them as part of our over-all review, and if they seem to have real promise, then we will incorporate them in a much larger way.
We are using our job-creation programs that we announced on Monday to provide us with an indicator of where we might go to deal with contemporary and future problems in the employment field. It is all designed to come up with an answer which I hope will provide us with good strategies that will be useful for the next eight to ten years.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister made a mistake. I think he said that he had increased the funds to Indians for their economic development by 50 per cent. Did I hear correctly? If that is what he said, he might wish to change it. Also, before we move on, I wonder if the minister would care to clarify why the things he just finished saying were not in his statement on Monday?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor. The minister will have an opportunity to make comments. It seems to me that it is a comment rather than a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I thought the minister might want to correct the statement about Indians in particular.


David Orlikow: It has been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. After listening to the minister, I would suggest the road to hell also is paved with past studies. This country has been buried in studies done at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. While I will be happy to act on that new parliamentary committee, task force, or whatever its title will be, I do not believe that there are any new ideas. I agree with the minister that very few people predicted in advance the intensity of the recession we are in now. But we have known for a number of years some of the fundamental problems we have in the country. These are problems which developed not while the minister was in office but while his party and his colleagues were in office.
Let me list some of those problems very quickly. I know we will have lots of time to discuss them on other occasions. It is now obvious, as many people have been pointing out for years, that our whole industrial strategy, or lack of strategy, has meant that our major manufacturing organizations, which are Canadian subsidiaries of multinational corporations, have been geared not to be so efficient that they are able to compete for
June 5, 1980

their share of the market not just in Canada but on the international level. The result is that they are now being battered and destroyed, not only for international markets but right here in Canada. The Liberal government of the past has done nothing for that.
Despite the fact we are spending, as the minister said, over $800 million a year on manpower training, we see a very strange and sad situation on one end. I look at what is needed in the way of skilled workers, and I refer the minister to a study which was done by machinery manufacturers in Ontario.
I know the minister must have seen the study which shows that the bulk of skilled tradesmen, machinists, tool and die makers, and electricians are now well over 40 years of age. We have recruited most of these skilled people in the past from other countries, despite the billions of dollars we spend on manpower training. They are not coming to this country now, and 1 say to the minister that the training programs he announced will only train several hundred people, when in fact we need thousands, or several tens of thousands of people.
We are not even beginning to do the job. There is nowhere we can see that more vividly than in the minister's and my city of Winnipeg. It has been estimated by educators in Canada that three million people, speaking from memory, but 1 think, if anything, I am underestimating, in this country are functionally illiterate.
We have noted in the city of Winnipeg the movement of native people from their reserves to the city, as well as to the city of Regina and others. They feel they will be better living in the cities than on the reserves where they were born. Their educational level is so bad they do not fit into the program being offered at the present time by our community colleges and manpower training schools.
What has been the response of the minister's department in recent years? Has it been increasing the money so that those people who are functionally illiterate can take courses? The answer is no; in fact it has been doing exactly the opposite. I wish the minister would scale down the kinds of speeches he makes and give us some solid facts.


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


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say how important this employment tax credit bill is, though it has its limitations in the rural and remote areas of our country. 1 was pleased when the minister announced his employment strategy last Monday that he included a number of programs such as the Youth Employment Program and the Canada Community Development Program, with an indication that there would be some $120 million for funding.
There are a couple of things I would like to know about this Community Development Program. First, will the assistance be given in terms of money for materials for the construction of projects? As most hon. members know, a number of these programs like Canada Works and the Local Initiatives Pro-
Employment Tax Credit Act
gram have been going on for the past several years in many communities, especially rural and native, where many of the projects have involved no capital investment and have been completed. These communities are now moving on to more sophisticated things like the construction of buildings, wharves, parks and so on. These require some capital investment.
Following along with what I think the minister has in mind, that the projects have a long-term development advantage, I am interested in knowing whether there will be funds provided over and above those provided under the Canada Works Program, 1 believe something like $30 per man-week, for materials and overhead costs. Will additional funds be provided for native groups and other small rural communities which do not have the financial wherewithal to provide materials for long-term facilities?
In this regard there has been an excellent working relationship with the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, at least in the Great Lakes region and in central Canada, where that branch of that department of government has provided material costs for repairing wharves, the development of marinas and so on. Has the minister made any arrangement for that kind of funding to be provided through that department, or is there a mutual agreement in this regard? If that is not the case I hope the minister will make representations to that department to obtain those funds. It is fine to have funds for labour under a community development project, but if there are no materials at the local level then these projects simply cannot go forward. I should like to know whether that arrangement has been made, or if in fact his department is providing additional funding.
I was very pleased to note in the minister's statement on Monday that he will be establishing a local economic development assistance program, LEDA. When this program was cancelled last summer by the former government we in fact had two local economic development groups in the Algoma constituency, one on Manitoulin Island and one on the North Shore, traditionally two of the highest unemployment areas, that were considering the establishment of local economic development corporations.
How soon will the minister establish these 15 or 18 pilot projects, and will the concept be the same as that proposed by the department a little over a year ago when it suggested that there be a fund of up to $250,000 per year provided to the LEDA corporations, part of which could be used for administration, perhaps $100,000, with $150,000 for equity investment, loans, advances and so on in order to establish these local economic development corporations?
It seems to me this would really provide a tremendous stimulus of opportunity for the local communities to band together to achieve something. In my constituency they have already established this kind of association of municipalities, but they do not have the funds to seek out prospective industries or develop indigenous industry in the area.
I hope this program will go forward and will not get bogged down in a lot of red tape as happened a year ago when there was an effort to make it completely acceptable to the prov-
1822

June 5, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
inces. Sometimes you have to move ahead and try the project rather than sit and wait until every "t" is crossed and every "i" dotted by provincial governments, because their objectives in creating employment are not always identical to those of the federal Department of Employment and Immigration.
I hope the minister will be able to give us some indication of how soon and what form these LEDA corporations will take, because I know they are eagerly sought after by groups like the Manitoulin Economic Development Association and the North Shore Economic Development Association, both of which have already been established but do not have the kind of funding this concept would provide.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Algoma I would like to indicate that the amount of capital that will be available to each project will be quite a limited amount. We would like to use the greatest proportion of the money for employment, the actual labour aspect of the project itself.
What I can indicate to him is that we have had discussions with a number of federal departments-the hon. member referred to Fisheries and Oceans-and we will work out combinations. If federal departments want to undertake some capital works projects, the individual department will put up the capital and we will put up the employment money. This is why we are trying to decentralize it in each region so if there is a wharf project, or a special capital works project that Fisheries and Oceans or Public Works might wish to carry out, we will be able to combine our efforts and give it priority.
I think it is incumbent upon members of Parliament, who see the kinds of priorities in their areas, to develop that kind of a project and approach the minister who has the capital side of it, and we will then supply the labour side. I think that is the way we will work those projects.
I should also indicate to the hon. member that, contrary to the last phase of Canada Works, we will be applying development money in each constituency. There will be a base allocation and we will then add to that, based upon unemployment figures, an additional amount; the higher the unemployment figures and the labour surplus the more money will be put into the constituency. In addition, we will put special criteria in for native unemployment. As a result, in an area like the hon. member's there will be a special allocation based upon native unemployment.
As for the LEDA program, I should say it is a program about which I am personally excited. I think it may provide one of the answers to long-term unemployment problems in Canada, helping small communities and others to develop an economic base of growth.
I see that you are going to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman. We will continue this dialogue another day.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.
.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, on May 26 and May 27 I asked some questions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) regarding certain documents which I had in my possession, one a confidential document from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources policy and analysis sector, and the other a transcript of an interview with the assistant deputy minister of energy, Mr. Clark. These statements were of concern to me because of the obvious problems which were noted in those documents with regard to the department wanting to get the nation off oil and on to other non-renewable energy sources.
At the same time they were considering that policy they were saying that they could not have two policies, one dealing with getting the nation off oil and one dealing with conservation of energy. The minister said that he was not aware of those statements within his department, and that is why I wanted to carry this debate on more fully this evening. I want to quote some of the statements which were made within these documents. One is from a source within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which states that:
-policy rationale within EMR is getting narrower and narrower. The decisionmaking balance is off keel. Though conservation will still make advances, the heavy emphasis on off-oil has gone beyond what reasonable economic analysis would allow.
Mr. Clark, the assistant deputy minister, stated in response to that:
-you don't want to give the public too many confusing signals so you really have to decide whether you are telling them to get off oil or are you telling them to conserve energy.
That does not show much faith in the intelligence of the Canadian people. He goes on to say:
Since in the short run what we really want them to do is to get off oil, we ought to concentrate our communications efforts on getting them off oil rather than conserving energy.
This is of deep concern to me because there is such a quick and cheap supply of energy available to Canada through the conservation policy. When the assistant deputy minister makes statements like this, it makes me wonder about the policies of the department.
Mr. Clark goes on to say:
-it would be nice to conserve all sorts of energy but it does seem to me-at least my advertising people tell me-
Is the department now considering its policy through its advertising department? Mr. Clark goes on:
June 5, 1980

-that it is difficult if the public gets different messages. So our conservation campaign concentrates on saying let's conserve oil. First get off oil. Then start to conserve-
Those statements are astonishing. One of the bureaucrats in the department said in response:
The feds have very little money yet they are going to spend it on substituting to another non-renewable fuel.
This document states that the off-oil policy is to get people off oil and onto natural gas, which is fine if we are prepared for that kind of program. The bureaucrat went on to say:
This will not result in much public confidence. But Clark doesn't know how to grapple with substitution to conservation and renewables.
The minister must get a hold on his department. If these kinds of statements are coming from the assistant deputy minister and are being contradicted by other officials in other sectors of the department, then how will this minister receive the proper advice which he needs from his department from time to time? I think he must get control of that department and tell them, as he told me in this House, that his policy is contrary to that and that he is concerned about conservation.
This government does not have a very good record in that area, Mr. Speaker. The report of the International Energy Agency of 1976 concluded that Canada's conservation record, over all, was one of the worst in the world. Our consumption of oil and natural gas per capita is the highest in the world. This waste of energy is costing us billions of dollars per year. If we could just get ourselves into a conservation frame of mind we could save hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day.
The Conservative party policy was to reduce consumption of oil and gas, or energy generally, by a 2 per cent factor per year but it seems as if the factor for this government as expressed in their document "Energy Conservation in Canada" is a 3.5 per cent increase per year. Between 1975 and 1990 the difference between the 2 per cent and 3.5 per cent factors would be from 482,000 to 600,000 barrels of oil per day. We just cannot overlook that, Mr. Speaker, and we must get serious about our conservation policy.
Through CHIP and by insulating the 70 per cent to 90 per cent of homes that are insulatable, by 1990 we could save another 104,000 barrels per day. There are many other ways that we could save on the energy that is necessary to meet our demands, through conservation programs in the coming years. 1 think the minister should answer my questions and tell us how serious he is about conservation.
Mir. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's support for the conservation efforts being made or planned by Canadians, including the federal government. There can be no question of the commitment of Canadians to conserving energy. The challenge is to find how all Canadians can be assisted in realizing that commitment.
A variety of steps are being taken to help Canadians achieve
our conservation goals. The few minutes available to me this
Adjournment Debate
evening are obviously insufficient to do anything more than note a few of these, but if the hon. member would like more details I shall be pleased to provide them to him.
The hon. member has inquired about legislation to promote conservation. As was set out in the Speech from the Throne, legislation will be brought forward soon to set mandatory efficiency fuel standards for automobiles, and our highly successful Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP, will be further improved.
With regard to co-operation with the provinces in conservation measures, in recent weeks the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) signed two federal-provincial agreements on energy conservation with the province of Manitoba. Existing agreements with Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have been extended until details are worked out of new agreements which meet the specific needs of those provinces. We have federal-provincial conservation and renewable agreements with all other provinces and territories, and expect that the total expenditure on them will reach well over $200 million in the next four years, of which $114 million will be from the federal treasury.
Co-operation in the private sector has been equally encouraging. Members may be aware that voluntary task forces of business, working with the government, have already made major progress and show every promise of achieving even greater energy savings in the months and years ahead.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps add that the government itself has a vigorous energy conservation program which has achieved accumulated savings in the past four years of more than $100 million. This is a remarkable achievement, helping to indicate to all Canadians what can be done in this vital area of energy conservation.


EMPLOYMENT-TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this adjournment debate tonight because of increasing dissatisfaction with answers we tend to get from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I hope his parliamentary secretary will be more forthcoming. We had an example of what 1 mean about eight o'clock this evening which showed the difficulty of getting the minister to respond to questions.
My initial question, and the source of much concern to me tonight, was asked in this House some two weeks ago. At that time I brought to the attention of the minister the fact that there is a morale problem in his department in western Canada. The minister has over 5,000 employees in the four western provinces.
I was informed about mid-April for the first time, and on subsequent occasions by two or three of the minister's officials in his department, that there was a morale problem that was, in part, a consequence of what was reported to be the minister's decision to hire a defeated Liberal candidate from the

June 5, 1980
Adjournment Debate
riding of Calgary West to be a special adviser in the minister's office. Part of the discontent with that decision, which perhaps is not normal that civil servants should be so affected by such an appointment, was caused by the special adviser himself who, on April 7 in an interview conducted by a representative of the Calgary Herald, indicated that he was going to work in the minister's office in Winnipeg effective May 1 at a salary which was "the same as the salary he was receiving in his previous job". In that previous job this special adviser was the president of a small junior college in Calgary. The salary that was paid to him in that position was $50,000 a year.
I rose in the House to point out to the minister that there were morale problems in his department because the top civil servant in each of the four western provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, is classified as an SX-2. The salary range for these experienced people with heavy responsibilities for budget and other staff, begins just a little over $38,000. In this case the minister had appointed somebody without that background, without that experience and without those kinds of responsibilities to provide advice at a salary of some $50,000.
That situation is causing serious morale problems in the west. Those morale problems show themselves at the riding level in decreased service to people. If people do not work for an organization or for a minister in whom they can believe, or who treats his whole department fairly, then their morale goes down and their willingness to serve the Canadian public is adversely affected.
I think it might be in the minister's best interests, or the parliamentary secretary's best interests this evening, that if the minister was correct when he said in the House the other day that the $50,000 salary was not correct, it would be useful to morale in western Canada, if the parliamentary secretary could tell us exactly what that salary is.
All that the minister told us was that the salary was not $50,000. It could be $50,000 and one cent. It could be more than $50,000, it could be less. But I think it would be in the interests of this nation and a service to the people in western Canada if the minister or the parliamentary secretary could be forthcoming and tell us.
A little more than a week later I rose in this House as a consequence of the minister's statement to this House on Monday, and as a consequence of the press reports which followed. We heard a great deal of impressive rhetoric about the minister's concern for jobs for women. In news reports on Tuesday, the day after the minister's announcement, the minister was quoted in the press as saying that the program he announced in this House on Monday would create 81,000 jobs total. In that same press report his officials are reported as saying that the announcements made in the House on the same afternoon would create 31,000 jobs total.
The minister handed us background papers on that same day. If one was to total up all the subparts, they indicate that 192,000 jobs were created. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary could take this occasion this evening to tell us whether there were 31,000 jobs created, 81,000 jobs created,
or 192,000 jobs created. However, the really important part of that question is the fact that in the minister's background paper he estimates that of the jobs created, and it does not matter whether we are talking about the 31,000, 81,000 or 192,000, 12,200 of those will be filled by women. That is a number that almost boggles my mind, if I may use that expression. Whether it is 31,000, 81,000 or 192,000, 12,200 jobs is considerably less than half.
The minister has repeatedly stated that he cares about women and the employment opportunities available to them. Possibly the parliamentary secretary can tell us whether the minister will consider that whole job-creation package with a view to putting in some rules, regulations and procedures that will guarantee that at least half of the created jobs go to women. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can give us an answer to that.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly give an answer to the second part of the question, but I remind the hon. member of the motion before us. Your Honour read it at five o'clock:
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40. to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows:-
Employment Training Programs for Women.
I do not know about the morale of employees in western Canada. I do not know about the problem the hon. member raised concerning the salary of the personnel concerned. What I had was a question concerned the training of women. That I will deal with.
I have to tell the hon. member that if he wants us to co-operate with him as far as Standing Order 40 is concerned, he will have to co-operate with us. He wants us to carry out research in order to answer his questions. He knows that we only have three minutes in which to give an answer.
The hon. member talked about questions raised in three different question periods. They had nothing to do with the Standing Order 40 debate this evening. If the hon. member wants us to co-operate, we will be glad to do that. As I said, we have three minutes to answer. Therefore, we will need to have the same co-operation from him.

Mr. Speaker, if we add to the existing employment and training programs those announced on June 2, we note that more than 183,000 women will receive training or find employment this year.
However, more than figures are involved, interesting though they might be. The announcement of June 2 emphasized the proposed reorientation of the program, which will not only provide opportunities for women, but will also offer them other benefits.
For the first time in their history, Canadian women will be offered assistance in the form of on-the-job training in types of
June 5, 1980

work traditionally reserved for men, where salaries are generally higher. Employers will receive a training grant of about 25 per cent more to train a woman for a non-traditional job rather than for a traditional job. Post-secondary graduates will be encouraged to use their skills in stimulating professions in research and development and in applying technological innovations in areas such as energy conservation and the development of manufacturing processes.
These programs, and especially the community services projects element, will be a useful tool for those who have difficulty in finding employment or rejoining the labour market. As everyone knows, these people are mostly women.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the programs announced on June 2 are truly innovative both in their orientation and in their approach and will offer immediately to women an income and opportunities through training and job creation. These programs are an essential step toward the development of a framework which will enable more women to be active on the labour market, and this in a greater variety of jobs and a more meaningful manner. These programs reflect a new orientation and a new initiative. With the co-operation of the private sector and non-profit organizations, they represent one more tool to help women reach their potential on the labour market, and if what we hope comes true, there is every reason to believe that they will be substantially extended in the years to come.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-MEDICARE PROGRAM-ANNOUNCED INCREASES IN PREMIUMS BY BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for taking the trouble tonight to show up personally to answer the question I raised the other day about medicare in British Columbia.
Some say that most modern medical practices are some combination of band-aiding and pill-pushing, and criticize them on the ground that we tend to treat symptoms rather than causes. That may be true, that may be our emphasis, but that is not really the point. The point is that we are constantly hearing people complain about the soaring costs of health care. They seldom consider, though, the cost of being sick, and fail to recognize that a healthy society is money saved. 1 do not think the minister falls into that category, but there was a long and bitter fight to establish medicare in this country, and when we see evidence that it is being eroded, some of us are extremely alarmed. I know this feeling is shared by the minister.
I raise this matter because the spiralling health costs of the last few years have prompted certain provinces, which now have the right through certain legislation which was brought about in 1977, to deflect money normally going to medicare to other provincial priorities. Consequently, more and more of the costs of medical care and health care generally are being loaded upon the consumer of health care, often the old and the
Adjournment Debate
sick, and they are often one and the same. As a matter of fact the troika of being old, sick, and poor is not at all uncommon in this country. Sure, there should be more money going into preventive medicine, into more training in terms of improved lifestyles and into advice about fitness and all the rest of it. Nevertheless, whatever the failings of medicare may be in this country, most of us are extremely grateful that we have it, and we are extremely concerned if there are indications that we might lose it.
Some people say medicare costs too much. The most recent figures I have indicate that it costs about 7 per cent of our gross national product. That is a pretty fair chunk of money in this country, but in the United States there is only private medical care, and it is a tragedy to be sick in the United States. A lifetime of savings go down the drain if you are sick in the United States. The cost of medical care there is 9 per cent of the U.S. gross national product, so ours is better, cheaper, and the envy of North America.
In my question the other day I asked if the minister would get in touch with the government of British Columbia and tell that government that its regressive, reactionary increases announced recently by the British Columbia minister of health are unacceptable to the minister because they offend the guidelines of accessibility and comprehensiveness outlined in the principles of national health care.
1 would like to quote some of the figures which I read and which are associated with the costs announced. According to the Vancouver Sun of May 30, "Monthly medical premiums will be increased approximately 15 per cent". That does not perhaps seem alarming, except when you recall that it is 15 per cent on top of an already large increase. From 1974 to 1978 British Columbia premiums went up 50 per cent per family of four. British Columbia is not alone. In Ontario between 1974 and 1978 premiums went up 80 per cent. In Quebec they went up 88 per cent. In Alberta they went up 33 per cent.
As my party predicted during the debate on the established programs financing bill, money would be diverted, but we thought it would be the poorer provinces which would do the diverting. However, it has not been that way at all. It has been the more affluent provinces. So, naturally, we are alarmed.
To get back to the increases contemplated:
-$8.50 from $7.50 for a single person, to $17.50 from $15 for a couple and to $21.25 from $18.75 for a family.
Then there are increases for ambulances and daily charges for daily visits as well.
What I attempted to do in my question was to provide the minister with some impetus, some encouragement to let the province of British Columbia know how the federal minister, who is responsible for three-quarters of a billion dollars in health care, more accurately $750 million or so each year, or $778.8 million which was the figure I received from the minister's own department feels about increased user charges. During the campaign, and at the medicare conference on November 5, 1979, the minister said:

June 5, 1980
Adjournment Debate
I see now that two years ago when block funding for health care was instituted, the well-intentioned gamble has backfired.
At the same conference she went on to say:
Notice should be given of the commutation of block funding and the renegotiation of cost-sharing arrangements with the provinces. The federal government must re-establish control of the medicare program. That is the official policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.
She went on to say in Winnipeg, during the campaign, on January 21, 1980:
The federal government has the right to stop medicare financing if residents are not getting reasonable care when they need it.
She also said:
Opting out is a threat to universal accessibility when doctors "balance" or "extra bill" their patients.
These are all things that have come about in provinces which are putting the lid on health care. We have had all kinds of labour strife with health care workers, doctors and nurses in the richest parts of this country, and that is why 1 want the minister to remember it was a Liberal bill, this Established Programs Financing Act. It was designed by the Liberal government to put a cap on federal spiralling medicare costs. She should not wait for the Hall report, but let the provinces know that the way they are proceeding is completely unacceptable to the basic principles of medicare.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that 1 have noted the action of the British Columbia government in increasing user charges under its hospital insurance plan and in increasing the premiums charged for coverage under its medical care insurance plan. What is most disturbing is that such increases and charges are not in the spirit or faith of medicare, which is free, good quality services to people wherever they live in Canada, in whatever province, and regardless of their income.
At the outset let me say that while 1 personally dislike very much these types of charges and the increases which are to commence on July 1, 1980, and 1 especially dislike the premium system which unfortunately is used in British Columbia and two other provinces in Canada, because premiums represent a regressive form of taxation, 1 must inform hon. members that, based on the information received, there is no action that the federal government can take immediately, such as withholding payment, and 1 will explain why.
Withholding payments can be done. It is the only tool provided in the legislation, a tool for the control of the use of the funds, but it can only be done based on the evidence that one or more of the five conditions is violated-the five principles on which medicare is based. 1 suppose it is fair to say that these principles or conditions are extremely general concepts and we are now faced with the problem in many provinces, unfortunately, where actions in the last two years, often in the last year and a half-unfortunately that is the case in British Columbia right now-may be breaching this concept, but withholding payment would cause a disruption of service to the people.
The previous government did appoint Mr. Justice Hall to make an inquiry which he will be completing, with recommendations, in a few weeks' time. There will just be the problem of translation left to finalize the inquiry and the publication of the report, and then I think it will be very urgent for all of us to make a great effort to save medicare, which I am sure we will do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourn until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, June 6, 1980