1981-11-19

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
30 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 19, 1981


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas jobs and payrolls depend on a stable economic environment, and whereas a stable taxation environment is essential to the work force of the nation, and whereas resolutions No. 9, accrued investment income, No. 23, restricted interest expense, and No. 31, capital gains and other reserves, in the November 12 budget attack the fundamental principle of a fair taxation policy, namely, the ability to pay, and whereas these stated resolutions impose the unfair principle of retroactivity on taxpayers in Canada thus doing irreparable damage to a fair and reasonable taxation environment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Finance withdraw resolutions Nos. 9, 23 and 31 of the November 12 budget in order to avoid a major economic calamity that will affect every single Canadian.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PROVISIONS AFFECTING SMALL BUSINESS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, the November 12 budget presented by the government has deeply angered small business men and business women across the country. As the details of the budget are more closely examined, there is a growing fury as these Canadians realize that many of the measures outlined by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) will, in the long run, result in even further financial pressure.
In light of the fact that the budget, while offering minimal relief only to those in extreme financial straits, is a pronounced step backward for the remainder of the business community and has been described, in the words of John Bulloch, president of the 62,000-member Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as a "bag of snakes", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Minister of Finance admit to the retrogressive and punitive measures directed at small business and either withdraw his budget or take immediate action to change its terms of reference.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the government, and particularly the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Public Works, be condemned for authorizing the use of the Sir Frederick Banting Building as a research centre where hazardous chemicals would be handled to the knowledge of the government, when they knew the building was unfit for that purpose, and for allowing the condition to persist for three years, thereby endangering the health and safety of public servants; and so that the full extent of their neglect be public, that the government forthwith table in the House of Commons all reports, minutes, memoranda and other documents relating to this deplorable situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has announced that he hopes to improve his government's policy on determination of refugee status, and whereas many Canadians have expressed the gravest concern that injustice may have been done to applicants for refugee status who were deported by Canada to likely imprisonment, torture, or even death, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):

November 19, 1981
That the minister take the necessary steps to ensure that all applicants for refugee status have no less rights than Canada affords to one accused of crime, namely, the right to counsel at every step, the right to oral hearing at every step, and the right to benefit of the doubt.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that has perhaps never been more urgent in the life of this nation. In this morning's edition of The Globe and Mail, it was reported that the Premier of Saskatchewan was preventing Canadian women from having full equality of rights which would be guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights.
Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson):
That this House calls upon the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Vancouver East, as well as the following NDP members from Saskatchewan; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, the hon. member for Prince Albert, the hon. member for Regina East, the hon. member for Regina West, the hon. member for Saskatoon East, and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, to petition their fellow New Democrat, the Premier of Saskatchewan, to change his current position so that provisions to ensure guaranteed rights for women will be included in the resolution now before Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I rise to debate the matter very briefly, Madam Speaker, by adding an amendment that the name of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), be added to the list that was presented in the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise, too, to speak briefly to the motion. Your Honour heard no "nays" from this corner, and I would simply add, as a footnote, that I would like to see a similar motion put, with the same unanimous endorsation, including the entrenchment of aboriginal rights for the native people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I just want to express my sympathy for the hon. members from Saskatchewan who did not want to support the charter in the first place because the premier of that province did not accept the resolution which was before the House for many months. Now they are in a terrible position. I just want to express my sympathy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: would like to add one further remark, and that is to ask the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) to apologize to the Premier of B.C. for blaming him for having been the stumbling block in this negotiation, now realizing that it is the Premier of Saskatchewan who has stopped it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, the reason British Columbia and Alberta came around was because people like me named them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I certainly support the intent of the motion. I would like to move an amendment to the motion that we further call upon all premiers to restore Section 34, granting aboriginal rights, to the constitutional resolution.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that all amendments are out of order. I had not yet put the motion to the House. However, I guess what I must do-the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: I just want to add a few words, that if the members of the New Democratic Party from Saskatchewan are not able to convince the Premier of Saskatchewan, I will certainly try to do my level best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I want to support the motion to reinsert the equality of men and women in the Constitution. It is a position I have taken at the committee, a position I have supported all the way along, and it is a position for which I am continuing to lobby.


Erik Nielsen: Don't talk it out.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, it seems that all of a sudden everyone in this House would like to take credit for what has happened in the last week, but the credit really belongs to the women of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 19, 1981


Judith A. Erola: -who have worked seven days to change these minds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question, question!


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to add the comment that the people of Manitoba removed one obstacle to the inclusion of the rights of women and native people, on Tuesday night of this week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Being a bachelor, I do not know much about women-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: -but I am quite willing to learn-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: -and Premier Lougheed is strongly behind every one of them!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid everything that has just happened has been quite out of order because the motion has not been put to the House. At this hour I must interrupt to go to oral questions.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Walter David Baker: Put the motion! Put the motion!


Madam Speaker:: Very well. I can take time to put the original motion to the House, because I cannot accept the amendment.
The House had heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. During this year the
Oral Questions
economic noose tightened around the necks of thousands of businessmen and women in this country. On November 12 the minister sprang the trap door with respect to the Small Business Development Bond, an instrument which was established by this party for the purposes of creating jobs through expansion and development of business. It is my understanding that the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia have issued instructions to all of their branches to impose a moratorium on the Small Business Development Bond. Would the minister please confirm this and tell us whether or not any negotiations have ensued between his office and the banks, and could he tell us exactly what is the current status?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no information that would justify the hon. member's claim. I will, however, check the situation, because I think it would be very regrettable if any moratorium were declared on this bond by any bank, because of its benefits for small business men.
The hon. member talked about the general economic situation. I am pleased to advise him that the bank rate has again dropped today. That means the bank rate is at its lowest level for this year. It has dropped almost six points since August, and that is extremely good news.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Epp:: Six points from where to what?


IMPACT OF TAX MEASURES ON INSURANCE INDUSTRY
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. It pertains to the taxation of policyholders of life insurance contracts. Some 60,000 Canadians are employed in the life insurance business, many thousands in the Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo area. Some 83 per cent of all policyholders make less than $25,000 a year. In light of the fact that there is going to be a tremendous drying up of long-term capital and that the jobs of thousands of Canadians in this industry are going to be imperilled, how can the minister possibly justify this tax grab?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will not attempt to justify every detailed tax measure in answer to questions on orders of the day, because we will be discussing in detail all of these measures in committee of the whole and I will be pleased at that time to answer all the hon. member's detailed questions with respect to this matter and others. But I would simply say to the hon. member that, upon examination of the situation, maybe he would justify to me why a portion of this particular kind of income should be exempt from tax when the average worker, who receives employment income, is fully taxed on all of his income. Maybe the hon. member would justify to me why there should be this inequitable treatment among various categories of income.


Chris Speyer: Because the income isn't received.

November 19, 1981
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT ON LONG-TERM INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, does the minister agree with my assertions that there is going to be a drying up of long-term investment from the insurance industry as a result of these tax measures? Does the minister agree that the jobs of thousands of Canadians are imperilled as a result of his measures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Absolutely not, Madam Speaker. The hon. member is speaking complete nonsense.


EFFECT OF PROVISIONS ON RETIREMENT INCOME OF FARMERS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is a matter involving the budget which simply has to be changed. No doubt the Prime Minister is aware that there are about 330,000 farmers in the country and that the average-size farm is less than 200 acres in Ontario. The tax measure around which my question evolves applies equally to small business men. The Prime Minister knows that those small farmers pass their farms on to the next generation and have a pension for themselves either by selling their farms for cash and taking an income-averaging annuity, or if they sell by term they use capital gain reserves. The Minister of Finance has abolished both of these legitimate and honest financing mechanisms. Can the Prime Minister tell me whether that is government policy at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, obviously anything that is in the budget is government policy.


MINISTER'S AWARENESS OF EFFECT
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance drew up the election platform in 1980 which promised substantial relief from capital gains for the farm community. Was the minister consciously aware of the effect that these two provisions in the budget, namely, income-averaging annuities and the capital gains reserve, would have on the small farmers and small businessmen in Canada when he put them in his budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously I examined each of these items very carefully. I would ask the hon. member whether he has considered the forward averaging system, which is put forth in the budget, as a very adequate and more fair substitution for the income-averaging annuity
contracts which were used in large part by high income earners to avoid tax.


INCOME TAX PROVISIONS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. The minister no doubt will know that after he has closed all the loopholes which he has said he is going to close, apart from the ones he has changed his mind about in the last two days,. 1 per cent of those earning less than $15,000 will have a basic reduction in taxes, and 70 per cent of those earning over $50,000 will have a basic reduction in tax. In light of those shocking figures in terms of the discrepancy in the benefits of the budget to the rich and the poor, I would like to ask the minister how he can possibly talk about equity in his budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the last time the hon. member cited a tax item from the budget he made a mistake, as I discovered in going back to the budget documents. If he wants to ask statistical questions in the House of Commons there is a proper way to do it, namely, to put them on the order paper, and I will deal with them in that way.


DEFINITION OF &quot;NEW KEYNESIANISM&quot;
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the minister can be as condescending and as inaccurate as he chooses to be. This is not a statistical question. This is a question about the basic impact of the budget on working people, on poor people, on women and on pensioners. If the minister wants to make it simply a question of statistics, that is his problem, but unfortunately it becomes the problem of millions of Canadians when they see how callous the government is in face of the hard economic facts of life.
If the minister has a correction to make to something I said, there are ways and means by which he can do that, and I will be glad to debate it with him at the appropriate time. The minister spoke the other day about a "new Keynesianism". If the minister refuses to answer the first question, let me ask him whether by this "new Keynesianism" he means a dramatic shift in job-creation programs, because I would point out to the minister that in 1971 when unemployment was far lower than it is today, the government was spending almost three times as much money on direct job creation than it is today. Is that a definition of the "new Keynesianism"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have never talked about "new Keynesianism." Maybe the hon. member could tell me what he means by that.


TAXATION OF PROFITS OF CHARTERED BANKS
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I am simply relying on a report of what the minister had to say
November 19, 1981

about his economic policies which came during that famous lunch held across the river in Quebec the other day. Perhaps the minister cannot remember exactly what he said as a result of the lunch.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: However, this is the only report on which we can rely in terms of what he said.


An hon. Member:: That was a cheap shot.


Bob Rae: It was neither a cheap shot nor a cheap lunch, Madam Speaker.
My final supplementary question has to do with the banks. I would like to ask the minister how he can possibly justify his failure to take action on the profits of the banks when it has been clearly established that, of the five most profitable banks in the western world, four of them are Canadian banks, and the most profitable bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, has a return on capital which is three times greater than the most profitable Swiss bank. How can the minister possibly justify his refusal to take action against the banks when he has those kinds of profitability figures available to him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has once again raised the question of taxing the banks. Perhaps he would examine the role of the Small Business Development Bond and the role of term preferred shares and income debentures in financing investment in this country. And has he reflected on the fact that at this time a tax which he put forward would obviously have the effect of closing off, for example, the use of the Small Business Development Bond which depends upon the after tax financing system which flows from that bond? Has he reflected on how is it possible for the banks, through the bond, to offer small business men rates of interest about half the effective market rate of interest? What he is proposing would have the effect of raising the effective rates of interest to small business men in this country. Like all his other rhetorical questions, they have very little substance and very little analysis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INQUIRY WHETHER GAS INCREASE IN QUEBEC WILL AFFECT PAYMENTS TO EASTERN PROVINCES
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following the substantial increase in the price of gas announced this week by the Quebec Minister of Finance, an increase of 35 cents per gallon-which is certainly the
Oral Questions
highest ever in Canadian history-could the minister tell the House whether this unusual increase will in any way affect payments to eastern provinces during the last few years in order to prevent too great a disparity in the price of gas across Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, this quite substantial price increase has created a situation where the average driver in Montreal, for instance, will be paying more than those in Newfoundland, who, traditionally, have been paying higher prices than anywhere else in Canada. At the present time, the people in Quebec are being taxed more heavily than anywhere else by their provincial government, not only in the area of income tax but even at the gas pump. I can assure my hon. colleague that the Government of Canada will maintain its policy of a standard base price throughout the country, so that all Canadians can benefit from a base price for oil that is reasonable and acceptable. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada has no control over taxes levied by provincial governments, including the PQ government in Quebec City.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his budget last week the minister attempted to point out a myth whereby the rich would suffer while middle class Canadians and small business would benefit, in other words, his Robin Hood approach to tax reform.
Now a number of nationally recognized accounting firms, including Dunwoody & Company, have in fact determined that the majority of small business men, who are already in dire straits, are saddled with considerably higher income taxes, some 20 times higher than last year, while the wealthy in the $200,000 and $300,000 bracket will in fact enjoy a reduced rate, as indicated in detail by this paper from Dunwoody & Company. It is not exactly the picture the minister tried to paint last Thursday. I therefore would like the minister to justify to this House, and particularly to the small business men who are already suffering as a consequence of the government's economic policies, this absolute reverse, contradictory and negative effect his budget is now having on the small business sector.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will welcome at a later date the opportunity to outline in detail the impact of the budget on small business in the country and, in particular, to answer point by point the unjustified allegations made by Mr. Bulloch as to the impact of the budget on small businesses. The fact of the matter is that, over all, the budget measures

November 19, 1981
Oral Questions
have complied, as well as we could, to the representations Mr. Bulloch made to us prior to the budget.
Over all, the budget flows considerable benefits into the small business community and, if the hon. member wants me to take the time later I will be happy to go into great detail to demonstrate to the small business men of this country that the budget is a very positive help to them in the current circumstances. Indeed, if I may say so, budget policies have already had the impact of reducing the bank rate substantially.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That in itself will have a beneficial effect on small business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, anyone who believes that small business has not been hurt by this minister's budget is either a fool or a Liberal.


An hon. Member:: Both.


Otto John Jelinek: It was not just John Bulloch who came out with these statistics. Dunwoody, Clarkson Gordon and most other chartered accounting firms in this country know that the minister's policies are hurting the small business sector.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF MINI BUDGET
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, now that the minister has admitted two mistakes in the last two days which, to his credit, he has corrected, will he now assure this House that he will either introduce a mini-budget in the very near future or make a new economic statement in order to rectify the inequities which have resulted from last Thursday's budget which are damaging the small business sector and hurting low and middle-income Canadians? Will he do that, and will he give that assurance to this House today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, but what I will do at the first opportunity is discuss in detail with hon. members in the House of Commons the impact of the budget which, in the main, is to establish within the tax system more justice, and to ensure that those in lower-income brackets and middle-income brackets are not carrying a disproportionate share of the tax burden in this country, and that those workers who depend entirely on employment income and who must pay fully on their employment income through the tax system are not, when compared with other taxpayers, put into a situation of inequity. That is the broad thrust of the budget, and that is the budget I will defend. If hon. members can make proposals to me in Committee of the Whole which would improve the operation of any of these measures, obviously I will consider them.
With respect to certain corporate organizations I issued yesterday transitional rules or grandfather clauses which are often the result of tax changes, and I will continue to make
such adjustments as required. But I assure the hon. member that I will not withdraw from the basic thrust of this budget, which is to establish a long needed reform in the direction of social justice in the tax system.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Last Monday I was prepared to welcome the minister home from Rome and the FAO meetings, but today I think it is much more important to welcome him home to the extremely serious and critical situation in Canada's total beef cattle industry. That situation is so critical that I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that today our cattle situation is more serious than it was 40 years ago when we had ten years of depression, drought and despair, throughout the thirties. I say that very sincerely because today-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I can see that the hon. member has a few pages to read. I ask him, please, to put his question now.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, is the minister now prepared to indicate what progress he is making to establish a national harmonized beef stabilization program for the total year of 1981-when it is concluded, of course-which would involve the governments of the cattle provinces, the cattle producers themselves, the federal department and the minister's staff, and has he arranged to meet with the cattle producers to plan this stabilization program?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that I recently mailed letters to all the beef producers in Canada. I believe there was a total of 140,000 letters. Included with them were questionnaires asking producers their personal opinions on what they think I should do. I believe there were five questions asking what I should do about the condition the red meat industry is in at present.
I agree to some extent with what the hon. member said about the economic condition of the industry, but many of the leaders in that industry have said that we should follow the system of marketing which has existed for years, and that we should not change it in any fashion or form. As far as I am concerned, producers have not been led down a golden path; it has been a bad economic path. We are trying to come up with some kind of plan which will make their economic return what it should be. I know that is what the hon. member wants. I want that and, for the good of the whole nation, we all want it.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, those same leaders of the cattle industry will be very disappointed today that the minister did not respond to my question about a specific date for a meeting with the cattle producers.
November 19, 1981


REQUEST THAT SURVEY RESULTS BE PUBLISHED
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question refers to that questionnaire the minister sent out over his signature to 140,000 cattle producers in Canada, and that includes 53,000 dairy producers. Will the minister's response, when it comes out, be made public? Will the totals be given for each sector within the cattle industry? For example, will he give the figures for the dairy industry, and the total response to that questionnaire?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks about what kind of plan I was proposing. I had the authority of the government to propose, and we did propose to producers in 1977, a 100 per cent harmonization not only for beef products but also for pork products and all other agricultural products. The cattlemen's association turned that down at that time saying that it was too rich, that it would cause overproduction and so forth. The hon. member should not say I have never offered them anything. I offered that to them on behalf of the Government of Canada, and they turned it down. Now they are asking me to come up with a plan. We had a plan for them over four years ago, but they did not accept it. That was one of the best plans ever proposed by any country in the world.
We are trying to make sure we do the right thing and, naturally, the facts we obtain from that questionnaire will be made public just as soon as they can be tabulated. The dairy industry provides about 25 per cent of the beef for the consumers of Canada and provides some of our meat exports to the United States of America, so that industry ought to be consulted too, and it is being consulted. The names of dairy producers are being kept separate in the computers because those names were taken from the dairy records we keep. It may not be a perfect mailing list, but it is as good as we can make it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the seatmate of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Canadians have long believed that the fishing industry is a common property of all Canadians, but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is drastically changing that concept of the Fishing industry, particularly at the moment on the east coast. There are meetings currently going on which will turn the common property of that resource offshore over to a consortium of four companies-Nickerson's, National Sea, the Lake Group and Fishery Products-in terms of a transfer of a property right which they will be able to trade, barter, borrow or sell.
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if he can confirm that an offer has been made to those companies to take company quotas. If that is the case, will the minister advise how he is going to ensure jobs in the offshore fisheries if those companies have that right and develop a monopoly of offshore fisheries to the exclusion of any other companies?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question underlines the difficulty of consultation where proposals are made, debated, and then judgments reached. This suggestion was put forward and discussed quite seriously by all segments of the industry. It was put forward at a meeting where fishermen, companies big and small, provincial governments and, of course, the federal government, were represented. I have not had a report on the reaction to this suggestion. When and if I receive that report, I will obviously have to assume my responsibility. I want to make it clear to the hon. member that, if this suggestion is adopted, it will be on a trial basis. No one intends to give away the resources of the people of Canada.


MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, in view of conditions in the east coast offshore industry and the Atlantic groundfish plan whereby the companies obtain their quota in a very short period of time, overstocking their warehouses and running into financial difficulties because of the interest rate policy of the government, does the minister feel he and his department are more competent than those companies which overfished last year at managing that offshore fishery?


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the figures of the fishery for January and February, he will see that what happened was a race for the fish and a lack of discipline. If we were able on a trial basis to allocate a fair share to the four major companies which run the offshore trawlers without affecting the inshore fishermen, the responsibility would be on their shoulders to ensure the best utilization of the resource for the markets that are available, rather than this mad race to catch fish because of the belief that, if they do not catch the fish today, somebody else will.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On November 16 the minister ordered CN Marine to reduce by one the two ferry service operations they currently have as a summer operation between eastern Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. That decision was taken at a time when the govern-

November 19, 1981
Oral Questions
ment should be considering restoring that service to a year-round operation. Why did the minister take one of those ferries off that very important service?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the main reason, and the obvious one, is the optimization of the use of federal money for transportation in Newfoundland, which amounts to almost $200 million at this time. The Marine Cruiser had more or less come to the end of its useful days. It would have had to be replaced with one that would have cost $50 million or more. The degree of subsidization for this service is very high, 80 per cent. For example, it is estimated that a trip made on that route by a family of two adults, two children in one car, costs the Government of Canada more than $1,000. We also considered the fact that there was capacity available at Port aux Basques going to North Sydney. Looking at all these factors, we made the decision we did.
I want to underline the fact that the $4.5 million which will be saved will be kept in the Newfoundland envelope and used in the best way in the future. This was all to be part of a package to be announced jointly by the federal government and the provincial government. However, as the hon. member knows, at the last moment the government of Newfoundland decided not to be associated with the less interesting aspects of this package deal. In the coming days we will make more pleasant announcements.


Madam Speaker:: That's quite an answer.


FUTURE OF FERRY SERVICES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister in his reply is invoking the Otto Lang user-pay concept. That is disturbing. I want to ask this question. If the minister is using the Otto Lang user-pay concept to cancel this very important service at a time when it should be extended year-round, will he advise what other Atlantic provinces marine ferry services will be cut back now that he has resurrected the Otto Lang user-pay concept?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not know to what extent I look like the former minister of transport. I am trying to make the best possible use of the money that is now available for Newfoundland in terms of existing assistance, and in terms of new money that the federal government is willing to put on the table. That is what I am trying to do. As my hon. friend knows, I have been in discussion with Newfoundland on that subject for the best part of nine months. We developed a package deal which is advantageous to Newfoundland. That package will be announced in the coming days. The government of Newfoundland, and I regret it very much because it is a regressive move, refused to be associated with some of the announcements, but is very keen to be associated with those that are coming which, I repeat, will be more interesting than the one referred to by the hon. member.
[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Further to the statement made by the Minister of Finance last week concerning economic expansion on the north shore of New Brunswick, to announce confirmation by Noran-da that a new factory would be built, could the minister inform the House how this will benefit the people of the area, considering the capital investment of over $300 million and the 50 per cent tax credit contained in the 1980 budget?

Can he inform the House of the direct benefits to the citizens as a result of the tax credit contained in the budget of 1980, and the other benefits-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think the question has been translated.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member on his tireless efforts in connection with this project, which has been qualified by the Premier of New Brunswick himself, and I quote:

"-one of the best pieces of news for New Brunswick in many years."

And I agree! During the construction phase, this project which is worth over $360 million, will provide work for 1,500 person-years. Subsequently, there will be permanent jobs for over 400 people. After years of hard work, this project has come through today because of the Minister of Finance's decision to grant a 50 per cent tax credit to a region that is among the most disadvantaged in Canada. I can say that in the past year, thanks to that decision we have been able to announce projects worth about $1 billion altogether in the northeastern part of New Brunswick.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister knows, the Czechoslovak Association of Canada has made repeated submissions since 1977 to the Minister of External Affairs, and even to the Prime Minister, asking for an end to the actions by which the Czechoslovak
November 19, 1981

government intimidates Canadian citizens, collects personal information for possible use in espionage and blackmail, and extorts considerable sums of money. Will the minister tell the House, and concerned Canadians of Czech and Slovak origin, whether the government has taken any effective steps to end these despicable and dangerous practices or whether the government, while engaging in unproductive negotiations, has in fact allowed the Prague communist regime to perpetuate its activities in Canada?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any such activities by the Czechoslovakian government in Canada at the present time. My hon. friend may be referring to the fact that the government of Czechoslovakia so far has not been prepared to sign an agreement with Canada concerning the problem of dual nationality. It does have such an agreement with the United States, but dating from pre-communist days, not one that was entered into by the communist government. The government is continuing its efforts to negotiate such an agreement at the present time.


PROCEDURES SURROUNDING ISSUANCE OF CZECHOSLOVAKIAN PASSPORTS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The minister is aware, of course, that they have been negotiating with this government for a long time, as far back as 1979. Is the minister aware that Czechoslovak passports are issued to Canadian residents of Czech and Slovak origin for travel to eastern Europe; and that this process involves the completion of a lengthy and intimate questionnaire, a personal interview by an officer of the Czechoslovak diplomatic service, and the signing of a statement of allegiance to the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic? Why was the provision in the Canadian Citizenship Act, which had a very salutary effect on this sort of thing and protected Canadian citizens of Czechoslovak origin and other nationalities from this kind of treatment undermining our country's sovereignty taken out of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1976?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman and I have approximately the same knowledge as Members of Parliament had about what happened in the Canadian Citizenship Act at that time. As I recall, I was the only member of the committee at that time who objected to those changes. All of the other hon. members of his party and of mine agreed with them. I am not sure that the hon. member should be addressing that question to me. I can assure the hon. member that we are doing our best to protect Canadian citizens in a trying situation.


TRAVEL BY PUBLIC SERVANTS USING NON-CANADIAN PASSPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime
Oral Questions
Minister. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister listened to the earlier questions; however, I am addressing my question to him in his capacity as Prime Minister and as chairman of the cabinet committee on security and intelligence. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether it is the policy of the government to allow federal public servants and employees of Crown corporations, as well as employees of industries with defence contracts, to travel to eastern Europe not using their Canadian passports, because presumably they are all Canadians, but passports issued by a communist country which declare them to be citizens of that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is right. I had not been listening to the previous questions. I will look into the matter.


LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF TRAVELLING WITH CZECHOSLOVAKIAN PASSPORTS
Donald W. Munro: If the Prime Minister was not listening, I will direct my supplementary question to the Solicitor General. I am wondering whether he is aware of these practices and whether he considers such behaviour compatible with continuing employment in these sensitive positions? Finally, does the Solicitor General intend to make it clear, for the benefit of those who may be tempted to submit to the Czechoslovak regime's blackmail, that they may be undermining the sovereignty of this country, and the Public Service Employment Act, and also running the risk of contravention of Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, obviously we maintain in the security service a continuing interest in the national security question that the hon. member has raised. I am aware of particular cases where Canadians of dual nationality have been pressured by foreign governments in one way or another. 1 take this opportunity to indicate to hon. members, as I have in the past outside this House, that the Canadian government does take an interest with regard to that problem.
I would hope that any holders of Canadian citizenship papers or passports who are also holders of passports of eastern European countries or other countries would want to bring to the attention of the government any kind of pressure that is being exerted on them by agents of foreign governments.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister will be aware that as the details of his budget become known and understood by Canadians, it will result in growing confusion and a growing negative response. If the minister has confidence in his budget, as he says he does, would he be prepared to refer the budget immediately to the Standing

November 19, 1981
Oral Questions
Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study, and to allow witnesses to appear and react to his budget so that its implications may be clearly understood and that its benefits may be clearly identified?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I thought that hon. members would much prefer to have the budget discussion held in the Committee of the Whole House. That provides members with an opportunity to raise the points they have in mind. For the last budget I did agree to have certain tax measures sent to the committee. In these circumstances I believe that the Committee of the Whole is preferable. However, I will keep the hon. member's suggestion in mind.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In light of an unprecedented move by the Northwest Territorial Legislative Assembly to travel en masse to Ottawa in protest against the absence of aboriginal rights in the November 5 accord, as well as other concerns, will the Prime Minister acknowledge the significance of that move by meeting with the Territorial Council before the end of this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, if I may get his attention. It relates to the intervention by two lawyers in a court case in Montreal yesterday, allegedly on the instructions of the Government of Canada, in which they attempted to restrict testimony of two ex-RCMP security officials. Whom do lawyers Joseph Nuss and Michel Robert represent? What are their instructions? Why are they engaging in heated and vigorous arguments to restrict testimony in a criminal prosecution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has some knowledge of law and of court practice whereby he would know that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the proceedings. As to who the people are and what their positions are, I will inquire, Madam Speaker.


NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will appreciate that I was not talking about the substance of the argument, nor of the evidence. I was asking what the instructions were to the two lawyers. Of course the main testimony of yesterday related to evidence from prime ministerial aide of 14 years ago, with no foreign involvement, no cabinet order, and no prime ministerial directive; therefore, no cabinet secrecy was involved. I ask the Prime Minister again, and he should know, why is there this continuing attempt to gag a court from inquiring into the same circumstances as this Parliament has been gagged and a royal commission has been gagged?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the substance of the question is evidence itself that the hon. member is engaging in the substance of the matter being discussed there. He is asking me why lawyers are pleading certain things in front of the court. Madam Speaker, if that is not intervening in the court, if that is not an intervention by a member of Parliament in a due process of law, I wonder what is.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the interest of furthering equity in the tax reform contained in the budget, would the minister consider restructuring the closure of the tax expenditure relating to tax of unrealized income from life insurance policies?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Joseph Lang: Madam Speaker, over 80 per cent of these life insurance policies are held by individuals earning less than $25,000 a year. The purpose of their purchasing these policies is to take financial responsibility in looking after their dependants. I wonder if the minister would consider refining his closure of this tax expenditure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for supporting the budget measures last night. In view of that support I would be happy to consider any refinements that can be possible in these measures.
November 19, 1981


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, November 18, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct the usual question to the government House leader, although in view of the fact that we will be having a House leaders' meeting this afternoon, he might not be able to enlighten members too much.
Presumably the first day of debate on the new Constitution will be tomorrow. Could I ask him if we will be going on with that debate next week or whether we will be finalizing the last two days of the budget debate on Monday and Tuesday?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I wish to confirm that we shall start the debate on the new constitutional resolution tomorrow, Friday, and that the debate will continue next Monday and the days following. We shall interrupt the debate very briefly-if it has not yet ended-next Wednesday to complete the fifth day of debate on the budget. Thursday, if necessary, we shall resume debate on the constitutional resolution. Next Thursday I shall be in a better position to advise my colleagues on what the business of the House will be for the subsequent days and weeks.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if the government House leader would mind explaining why we do not complete the remaining two days of budget debate, rather than having one day next week and leaving the other day hanging?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 18(2), the government has the right to determine the order of business in the House, and since we shall be having a meeting later on today, perhaps this could be discussed at that meeting.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question relates to government business. I should again like to ask the President of the Privy Council when he intends to bring forward Bill C-53, the long overdue legislation respecting sexual offences. As he will know, we on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party have agreed to a very short debate in order that the bill can go to committee. It is my
Business of the House
understanding that the government is similarly in agreement. Will the President of the Privy Council indicate what the status of this important legislation is and why it is that Canadian women have to continue to wait for legislation which will redefine rape as a violent assault as opposed to a crime of passion?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the committee concerned already has a bill under consideration namely the access to information bill, and I have been told that work is progressing slowly but surely. In any case, regarding the bill to which the hon. member is referring, I should like to say once more what I have stated publicly in the House during previous weeks and months, namely that as far as the government is concerned, we are prepared to proceed with the second reading of this bill as soon as possible, that is, we are prepared to arrange with the opposition parties to limit the debate to one day, before sending the bill to committee. The House is aware of this, and I am prepared, whenever I have the opportunity again, to put forward this proposal to my colleagues. But it is not up to the government alone to give its agreement. I need the co-operation of the hon. member's party and of the Progressive Conservative Party. Now, we have several bills which should not be too controversial, which are to be considered at the appropriate time, preferably on Fridays, and I can assure the hon. member that this bill is included on the list.


Mr. Young:: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader if he can give us any indication when we could expect to see the amendments to the Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against disabled Canadians other than in the area of employment. As he may know, the Minister of Justice assured representatives of COPOH several weeks ago that the legislation was about to be brought into the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall consult my colleague, the Minister of Justice and I hope to be able to report on this to the hon. member within a reasonable period of time.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, in order to enable us to prepare for tomorrow, I wonder whether the government House leader can enlighten us on whether the Prime Minister, who presumably will take part in the debate, or whoever leads off for the government, will introduce any amendments to the resolution that is now on the Order Paper and, if so, could we have copies of them?
[Translation[


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the resolution has been tabled, it is on the Order Paper and we are supposed to meet this afternoon to discuss procedures for the debate. The

November 19, 1981
Business of the House
amendments issue is on the agenda, and I shall be happy to discuss this item at the meeting. I cannot confirm whether the Right Hon. Prime Minister will speak or when he will speak. At this point I am not in a position to confirm whether the government is to introduce one or several amendments. This will all be discussed at our next meeting, and I cannot further enlighten the member for Yukon at this time.

Mir. Waddell: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader what happened to Bill C-48. Has it slid into welcome oblivion, or is it still with us and when are we going to vote on it?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as far as we are concerned, if there is unanimous consent in the House, we are willing to vote immediately on the third reading of Bill C-48.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, on a matter of House business, I want to ask the government House leader to report to the House with respect to legislation that was promised in the Speech from the Throne relating to the inclusion of disabled persons in the Canadian Human Rights Act, in view of the fact that this is the International Year of the Disabled. The minister's parliamentary secretary was chairman of the task force on this matter and I know he will have advised him. Is the minister prepared to indicate whether the government will at least table the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of the Speech from the Throne in this International Year of the Disabled?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister of Justice met with the people concerned on or about November 10. I feel it would be in order for me to consult him before answering the hon. member's question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Privy Council): Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,841, 1,932, 3,150, 3,191, 3,247 and 3,250.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the Department of External Affairs information Service Study No. T0061 (a) on what date was the questionnaire prepared and (i) were recipients given more than six days to respond to the questionnaire and, if not, for what reason (ii) how were the recipients selected (b) what is the information to be used for (c) for what reason does the minister feel that such a study was necessary (d) will the information gathered be used in designing an advertising campaign?
2.	What was the total cost of the study?
3.	Will the results be made public and, if so, on what date?
4.	Has the department undertaken other studies and, if so (a) what was the subject in each case (b) what was the estimated total cost?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. (a) The questionnaire was prepared in October, 1980, at the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (i) Respondents were asked to reply by November 12, 1980. In some cases, this was not more than six days. It was felt that a deadline was required to urge as quick a response as possible. Nevertheless, responses received after the November 12 deadline were accepted, (ii) Recipients were selected as representative public opinion leaders across the country.
(b) and (c) The information gathered will serve to increase and broaden the Secretary of State for External Affairs' and the department's awareness of public attitudes and ideas on foreign aid. The SSEA feels it is important to consult with the public about this at a time when relations with developing countries are gaining increased importance in Canadian foreign policy as well as in world affairs.
(d) The intention was not to use the results of this survey to design an advertising campaign.
2.	$4,500.
3.	The results will be made available to the public upon request after November 12, 1981.
4.	Yes. The department undertook in 1978-79, a study entitled: "Canadian Public Awareness of World Affairs and Foreign Policy Issues". The report was published in 1980. The estimated cost was $20,000. In addition, CIDA has undertaken in 1980 a related study on "Canadian Attitude Towards Foreign Aid".


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the cost in the last year for which information is available, of government transportation subsidies on Newfoundland traffic?
2.	Do the costs include losses incurred by the Canadian National Railway and, if not, what was the cost to the Railway?
3.	What are the estimated costs for the current fiscal year?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In so far as the Canadian Transport Commission is concerned, the following information is provided in relation to payments under the Atlantic region freight assistance program.
November 19, 1981

1.	Payments certified for fiscal year 1979-80: (a) motor vehicles and water carriers domiciled in the province of Newfoundland $3.2 million, (b) Canadian National during the same period received $19.2 million. However, such amount relates to total movements performed within the entire Atlantic region and cannot be segregated for Newfoundland traffic only.
2.	See part 1(b).
3.	Payments for fiscal year 1980-81: (a) Motor vehicle and water carriers domiciled in the province of Newfoundland received $3.6 million, (b) Canadian National Railways received $17 million for movements performed within the entire Atlantic region. This amount cannot be segregated for Newfoundland traffic only.
In so far as Transport Canada is concerned, the following information is provided in relation to water transportation subsidies on Newfoundland traffic:
1. Payments for the 1979-80 fiscal year:
CN Marine	1979-1980
North Sydney to Port aux Basques Newfoundland coastal service North Sydney to Argentia	$32,877,577 26,405,962 6,752,687
CNR North Sydney to Port aux Basques	23,407,000 $89,443,226
Newfoundland Steamships Ltd. St. John's-Corner Brook to Montreal	4,029,750
Northern Cruiser Ltd. St. Barbe to Blanc Sablon	569,831 $94,042,807
Province of Newfoundland-grant	$ 1,400,000
2. Yes. As illustrated the subsidies include payments to the Canadian National Railway Company pursuant to contracts with Her Majesty to pay the costs of rail/water and narrow gauge/standard gauge interface, ferries and terminals. In addition, we are informed that for the year 1979-80 CNR absorbed losses of its Newfoundland division, TerraTransport, of approximately $28 million for which no government subsidy was available.	
3. The estimated costs for the 1980-81 fiscal year are:	
CN Marine	1980-1981
North Sydney to Port aux Basques Newfoundland Coastal Service North Sydney to Argentia	$36,386,000 30,172,000 9,011,000
CNR North Sydney to Port aux Basques	20,412,000 $95,981,000
Newfoundland Steamships Ltd. St. John's & Corner Brook to Montreal	4,000,000
Northern Cruiser Ltd. St. Barbe to Blanc Sablon	603,500 $100,584,500
Province of Newfoundland-grant	$ 1,544,625
Order Paper Questions
In addition, we are informed that for the year 1980-81 CNR expects its Newfoundland division, TerraTransport, to lose approximately $30 million for which no government subsidy will be available.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 2,628 which stated that the government is considering raising the limit of insurance on bank accounts and term deposits from the present limit of $20,000 and that a government policy will be announced "in due course", what is a definition of the phrase "in due course" and what is the target date, if any, for the government to make known whether such a change will be made in order to protect depositors more adequately, due to larger deposits brought about by the sinking value of the dollar?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: In so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have been advised by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation that I am not in a position to indicate at this time what action, if any, will be proposed to Parliament with regard to changing the present $20,000 deposit insurance limit. However, the government plans to introduce revisions to the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act in the not too distant future and it would seem appropriate that any discussion by Parliament of the adequacy of the present limit should take place at that time.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each of the past four years, what was the total amount spent by the Department of External Affairs on receptions, including entertainment, liquor and wine (a) outside (b) inside Canada?
2.	In each case (a) what was the total for the four years (b) were only Canadian beverages served and, if not, for what reason (c) is it government policy to serve only beer, liquor, wines and liqueurs that are produced in Canada at our foreign establishments and, if not, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Outside	Inside
1977-78	3,535,841	833,4391978-79	3,981,483	723,9571979-80	4,009,374	340,8761980-81	4,655,445	1,029,9771977-78	4,369,280	1978-79	4,705,440	1979-80	4,350,250	1980-81	5,685,422	
(b) and (c) During hospitality extended in Canada, the department serves as far as possible, Canadian beverages such as rye whisky, gin, and Canadian wine and beer. However, there are times when the demands of the menu or the tastes of the foreign guests predominate and on those occa-

November 19, 1981
Order Paper Questions
sions, foreign wines are served. Canadian Heads of Missions abroad are encouraged to become acquainted with Canadian wines in order that they may use them as part of their regular representational programs. As the quality and quantity of Canadian wines increase, it is anticipated that many of Canada's missions will wish to give this serious consideration. However, there are constraints of quality and economies which do not always make this a feasible proposition.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the establishment of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, how many applications were (a) approved (b) not approved?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
Acquisitions (April 9, 1974-Sept. 30, 1981)	New Businesses (Oct. 15, 1975-Sept. 30, 1981)	TotalAllowed	1,504	1,461	2,965Disallowed	171	117	288Withdrawn	166	160	326


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Foreign Investment Review Agency refuse to give information to Members of Parliament who are making legitimate inquiries about the status of applications when such inquiries are made with the approval and at the request of both the applicant and the Canadian counterpart and, if so, for what reason?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned, it is the policy of the agency to be as co-operative as possible with all Members of Parliament who seek information about the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act. However, under the confidentiality provisions which are set out in section 14 of the act, information about an application may not be disclosed without the express written approval of the applicant authorizing the agency to discuss the application with the Member of Parliament involved, and then only information submitted by the applicant may be discussed.


Madam Speaker:: The questions as enumerated in French by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) has the floor.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to look into what is causing the delay in answering question No. 1,795 which I placed on the Order Paper a year ago. It is a question regarding private organizations receiving federal grants for research and development. There are some other related questions which are quite routine. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary would find out why it has taken a year to answer this question.


Mr. Smith:: Madam Speaker, I will take note of that representation.


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the usual question about when we will get an answer to questions Nos. 2,035 and 2,519. These concern the cost of operating government aircraft for the benefit of cabinet ministers.
If they are never going to be answered, I wish that the House leader for the government might make a statement on motions as to why the taxpayers of Canada are apparently not to be given the information showing what they are paying for and how much it costs them to have these ministers flying wherever they are flying.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will take due note of that representation, as well.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain) moved:: That this House condemns the government's budget for (a) not introducing new job-creation measures in the light of the largest number of pre-Christmas lay-offs experienced since the depression (b) the complete rejection of an effective industrial strategy to provide long-term jobs and thus a cynical reversal of the government's election promises.
He said: Madam Speaker, this morning, along with a number of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I met the people who travelled from various parts of the country to bring to our attention and, as I understand it, to the attention of other hon. members of the House of Commons, the plight they are facing in terms of trying to maintain any semblance of economic order in their lives. I met with people who had lost or were about to lose their homes, and with people who have lost or are about to lose their jobs, those who are faced with the bleakest of prospects. I heard them explain the impact of the economic dislocation which has been brought about by this government's policies.
I heard one young man explain how, after months and months of inadequate income levels as a result of only receiv-
November 19, 1981

ing unemployment insurance benefits having been laid off from his job of five years, and struggling to make ends meet, the inevitable happened. He and his wife, having gone through all of the human emotions which are allied with the problem of not having a job or an income, finally decided that they could no longer survive together. They separated, she and the children going to live in one place and he going to live in another place.
I heard a young man explain how someone in his plant who had been laid off and who had been faced with renewing his mortgage finally threw up his hands and committed suicide. I say to the government, although I do not want to overstate it, which is very difficult, that the result of the economic policies of this government is that not only are sane people being driven insane, but a situation is also being created in this country which makes life virtually impossible for large numbers of people.
I want to suggest to the government members who are here today that the responsibility for this policy is not only that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). The responsibility for this policy is not only that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the cabinet. It is the responsibility of every single Liberal backbencher who does not bring to this government's attention the fact that the policies it is now following are leading to the ruination of the very citizens of the constituencies they represent.
I said to those people this morning that what galls me is that, while they suffer so terribly, there are some in our society who are living off the fat of the land and enjoying a return on their investments which is unprecedented in Canadian history. There are some who are enjoying so much at the expense of so many others, and that seems to be the direction this government is bent on following. I suggested to them that while I would obviously like to be in government, and that is probably the aspiration of any Member of Parliament or, for that matter, anyone involved in politics, at this point in time I would much rather see this government do something useful for those people than pursue the goal of defeating it. Quite frankly, I would much rather accept that it was doing something and leave it there than run the risk of further economic chaos.
1 told them 1 thought there was only one way for them to deal with the situation confronting them, and that was that in every single community across this country they should identify the closest Liberal Member of Parliament. They should walk, go by car, car pool or bus, or if there is still a train running they should catch the train, and go to the closest Liberal Member of Parliament's constituency office or, for that matter, to his or her home. They should explain to those of you, who do not seem to realize the economic ruin they are causing many people in this country, that your policies are no longer acceptable and that you must change the direction you are following.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Job Creation


Ian Deans: There is only one way to get through the heads of the members of the Liberal Party the fact that the country is facing economic ruination. It is to let you know, face to face, that come the next election these people will not have forgotten. These people will not be sucked in again by your promises on the election eve.


Marc Lalonde: Stop making the children cry.


Ian Deans: Listen-me making the children cry? If that child-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I call to the attention of the hon. member that remarks are to be addressed to the Chair.


Ian Deans: I am terribly sorry. I did not realize I was not addressing them to the Chair. I am addressing every remark I made through the Chair, believe me. I said to them that it is time they bring to the attention of this government the fact that there will be no forgiveness two years down the road when you bring in your giveaway programs in an effort to bribe people to vote for you again, hoping that their memories are short. They should make it clear that never again will any one of you return to the House of Commons unless they see some action now on their behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I listened to that child cry and it was no wonder. If the child is old enough to understand what faces him or her in the future, it is no wonder-


Marc Lalonde: Two years old.


Ian Deans: -that the child cries.
I want to talk about certain places in Canada because two of my colleagues will talk about eastern and western Canada and the impact of this government's insane policy upon them. It seems as though the policy of the government is to create economic dislocation. It seems as though the policy of the government is to accept high levels of unemployment and high interest rates, to allow people to lose everything for which they have worked, to destroy communities, and to do little, if anything, to bring about any redirection of the economy in general.
My colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), during the question period earlier, raised with the Minister of Finance probably the best example of this government's wrong-headedness. In 1971, 6 per cent of the work force was unemployed, and the government spent $339 million in direct job-creation programs in an effort to alleviate the problems for that 6 per cent. Ten years later, in 1981, 8.3 per cent of the work force is unemployed. The government has committed $143 million to direct job creation.
I put the following question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) who is sitting and watching, obviously interested in what I am saying. How can it be that, with 6 per cent of the population unemployed, with over one

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
million people looking for work, we are spending less than half what we spent ten years ago in direct job-creation programs? How can it be that we are not involved in a direct subsidization of the economy now in an effort to give people an opportunity to work, to earn a living and so meet their commitments? How can it be that all across the country, perhaps with one exception, we find plants closing down? The very heart of British Columbia and its forest industry, about which my colleague will speak later, is facing the bleakest future it has ever faced. Why is it that the fishermen and those who work in the plants on the east coast of this land are faced with unemployment levels they have never seen since the depression?
Why can the government not see the necessity to develop an over-all program to get those people back to work and provide them with assistance? There are people who were unable to earn enough in the summer time, their normal time to do it, to give them an income during the winter to sustain themselves. We hear from the government that it is worried about the situation, but it is not working on a program to assist those people. My colleague will speak about that a little later.
I want to tell the minister that the frustration of trying to come to grips with what it is that motivates this government is almost beyond anyone's capacity to absorb. I have tried over the last few months to think of reasons why the government would sit back and allow this kind of chaos to continue across our land. I have tried to imagine what goes on in the minds of those in the cabinet when they learn of town after town having major industries close down, laying off workers and with people having to move away. I have tried to picture what kind of response the ministers of the Crown might put forward to answer those situations. I must confess that in thinking about a response and then trying to visualize it in terms of the direction the government announced the other day through its budget, I can only come to the conclusion that the government does not understand.


Neil Young: The government is mindless.


Ian Deans: The government does not understand that it is dealing with the lives of individuals all across the country. I have come to the conclusion that the government thinks that somehow or another things can be expressed by way of statistics. It seems the government thinks that things are either up a fraction or down a fraction, and fractions are not real people. But people are represented by figures. The government talks about batches of computerized figures that come spewing from government ministries, but in fact there is no background, no depth or substance to that.
There is not a single community that I have visited where I have not run into the human misery people are facing as a result of what can only be described as the callous attitude of this government. I was in Newfoundland two weeks ago and I was in New Brunswick last week. I travel through Ontario regularly. I have seen that human misery everywhere.
The minister, or whoever it may be who wants to answer for all of this, must agree that it makes sense to recognize, first, that the major problem confronting the people of Canada today is the detrimental effect being felt as a result of high interest rates. The reason so many people are being laid off in the auto industry, the appliance manufacturing industry, the building industry, the shoe and apparel industry and the food industry is that friends and neighbours are unable to afford to pruchase the products manufactured because of the high interest rate policy being pursued by this government. There is no other single factor which has had such a devastating effect on our economy and on people's lives.
Let me ask hon. members, why are people not buying cars? They are not buying cars because they cannot afford to carry the interest. Why are people not buying houses? They are not buying houses because they cannot afford the payments. Today I listened to people who are about to walk away from their homes. Not only will those people lose their investment, but in some cases they will have to borrow money to pay to the mortgage holder the difference between the level of the mortgage and what the house is worth. These people will be in debt. They will be walking away from their homes. They will have lost their equity and, in addition to that, they will owe at some usurious level of interest $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000. These people will have absolutely nothing to show for their investment.
I suggest that the minister take a look at the number of plant closings and the number of lay-offs that have occurred in this country. One can draw no other conclusion than that there is insanity over interest rates.
If the government were prepared to act on behalf of Canadians using a Canadian monetary and fiscal system to create stability rather than doing what it is doing, which is following blindly in the wake of the United States government, then most of the industries that are now in the process of laying off people would no longer have to lay off people.
I spoke in the House about a week and a half ago regarding the problem in the agricultural industry. I made mention of the fact that the difficulty being faced would only become compounded in the fairly near future. Already that has come to pass. My colleague, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), has been struggling daily in an attempt to get some action from the government regarding the recent announcements by Massey-Ferguson. The reason that Massey-Ferguson is in such difficulty-and I do not think this is any revelation, aside from the fact the company was rather badly managed for some period of time-is because farmers cannot afford to buy the equipment Massey-Ferguson manufactures. The difficulty there is that farmers have to carry the interest rate. The rate of interest is so high that the rate of return to the farmer from the sale of his produce, or from the sale of whatever is his main source of livelihood, is not enough to carry that burden. I pointed out that over the course of the next five years if the industry does not produce it would gradually disappear. In time farmers need to replace machinery, but there would be no Canadian industry to turn to.
November 19, 1981

Again, we would have lost a major part of the economic fabric of this nation.
I suggested that concurrent with that is another very serious problem. If farmers cannot replace machinery when it is necessary to replace it, we would be facing a gradually diminishing production level. Along with that, the farmer would not be able to maintain the competitive nature of his operation. Gradually the price of food would rise. The farmer would not be able to keep his operation going in the way it should, and inevitably that would cause even further economic dislocation somewhere down the road. The lay-offs at Massey-Ferguson are the beginning of an end to an industry unless this government is prepared to take immediate action to offset it. But I do not see any evidence of this government being prepared to do that.
Let me talk about people for a moment. When 1,750 people are laid off in a place like Brantford, that is serious. The spin-off is devastating. The agriculture implement industry alone has lost some 3,500 jobs in the last year. Those jobs have just disappeared from the marketplace in Brantford. There is nothing to replace them. Those people still have to pay their bills and their taxes. They still have to feed their families.
You might ask me, Mr. Speaker, why do they not go and find jobs some place else? Where are they going to find those jobs? Are they going to go to Chatham, perhaps, where International Harvester has just laid off 600 people, where Motor Wheel has just laid off 149, and where Rockwell laid off 500? They can just go down the street a way and they will find that the very same situation which exists in the community they live in exists in the community beside them. Will they go to Hamilton and attempt to get a job there, where plants are laying off large numbers every day? Where do they go? Perhaps they should go to Toronto and apply at McDonnell Douglas, or maybe they will drop into Windsor and see if they can get jobs with Chrysler. Maybe they will come to Oakville and knock on the door of Ford. All these companies have been laying off by the thousands. Maybe they will decide to uproot their families and travel to the opposite end of the country, British Columbia, and try to find jobs in the forest industry, only to find that the forest industry is not working.
What kind of insanity is it when the government cannot see that there is a serious and tragic problem all across this country? If this problem was isolated to one geographic area I would say there perhaps could be an excuse for the government not dealing with it. But the fact of the matter is that it exists in every single community; it is at the very core of the community, and generally speaking in the small communities it is the major employer who is on the way out.
I want to say to the minister and the government that there is a way that we can bring some sense to this lunacy. Let me .suggest, to begin with, that this government should now undertake an inventory of every single project that has any social value in every community across this country. The government should take a look at how one could reasonably fund those
Job Creation
projects at this time, to move them forward in time and begin them now rather than two years from now in order to initiate that economic stimulation which would take place.
I am not talking about pouring dollars into useless things, but when there are undertakings that obviously will have to be proceeded with over the course of the next two or three years I would urge the government to compile a listing and begin now to make available the necessary capital to start those projects.
I want further to suggest that there are sufficient numbers of people who are unemployed in this land and looking for work that we could begin, in an effort to meet what is now becoming a housing crisis with vacancy rates down below 1 per cent in most metropolitan areas, to build the homes that those people need, using the products of this country and the productive capacity of those people who are unemployed.
I want to suggest to the government that if we were to elevate our expectation level and produce in this country the number of homes that by any calculation we are going to need over the next five years, on a systematic year by year basis, not only would we create employment for the people who would build the homes, those people who work on the job sites, but we would create employment for the people in the forest industry, at Weldwood and other places, and we would create employment for those people who used to make the bathroom fixtures at Wabco Standard. We would also create employment for the people who make the tiles that go on roofs, the tiles that go on floors and the piping that goes into the infrastructure. We would create employment for people who make wallboard and for people all across this country in numbers that would not only bring down the employment level but would help to ease the terrible problems so many families are facing today.
This is an investment. We are not talking about give-aways, we are talking about investment. We are talking about investing capital now in the future of the country. We are talking about investing money that will ultimately be invested in any event. We are suggesting that if ever there was a time to commit money, that time is now. We have to make sure we meet the basic requirements of people, and we are not meeting them. If the private sector cannot or will not meet their obligations, particularly in things like shelter-and I suspect will not is more likely the case than cannot-then the government has an obligation as an investment in the future to make available the capital necessary to proceed with the building of the homes and apartments that must be built in order to meet the need.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I know you understand this being a student of economics, that if we were to start there is no question at all that the close to 8 per cent level of unemployment we now have-the million people who are at home looking for work today-might be cut in half. We could create jobs for half of those peole who are not all on the public payroll. In fact, most of them are not on the public payroll. This would revitalize communities which range all the way from Vancouver to St. John's. It would revitalize the areas of this country that desperately need some injection of hope. It

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
would give the people a sense that the government understood what it was doing, that it understood the problems of the people and that it had a plan of action.
I admit this is not the most sophisticated plan of action. It does not get into all of those newfangled terms everybody uses when they think about industrial strategy. What this plan involves is simply the utilizing of the power of the government to mobilize the unemployed, the capital of this country and all of the industrial capacity that is sitting idle, in order to create what is desperately needed, employment on the one hand and housing on the other, with all of the related benefits that would flow from it. It is the simplest approach. But, you know, there is something about it-it works, strange though it may seem. I realize there are those in this House who might wonder about this, but it works.
If you engage in that kind of job creation, the two things I have mentioned-the undertaking in the public sector of moving ahead with projects that are going to go ahead anyway, doing them now rather than later, and meeting just the immediate demand for accommodation-the effect will be sufficient to turn around the economic malaise that exists from coast to coast, with two or three exceptions.
I make a plea to the government. To berate the government makes no sense. I have tried and it does not work. I have tried to appeal to you. I have tried to appeal to your conscience and decency.


An hon. Member:: They have none.


Ian Deans: I have tried to appeal to your understanding of the-


Marc Lalonde: Have some respect for the Chair.


Ian Deans: -feeling that people have for the problems that confront them and their families. I hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) babbling on again.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to remind the hon. member he should not berate the Chair as he does.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Marc Lalonde: He is referring to the lack of understanding of the Chair and-


An hon. Member:: Sit down and be quiet.


Marc Lalonde: He has been in this House long enough to know the rules of the House as far as respect for the Chair is concerned.


Ian Deans: That will certainly set the minds of those people who are in to see me at ease. I know they will be very impressed by that interjection.


An hon. Member:: That was his best one this year.


Ian Deans: What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, through you, even to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as hard hearted as he may be, is that there is no excuse for what he is doing to the people of this country. There is no excuse. There can be none given and none accepted.
The budget which came in on Thursday last is a national disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: It is a fraud. It should have and could have recognized the problems of this country and dealt with them in a way which would have been of benefit in both the long term and the short term. But it has failed.
This is the same government, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, which was berating the Tories when they were in power for not coming to grips with high interest rates, high unemployment levels or high energy prices. This is the same government that seems to have gone completely off track.


An hon. Member:: You are sorry you supported them.


Ian Deans: I have never supported them in my life. The problem is so serious that the difficulty now is that it cannot be left any longer. There has to be a solution to these problems and the solution does not have to be so complex as to be incomprehensible. It can be a solution similar to what I have suggested today.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the New Democratic Party has brought this motion forward because it gives us an opportunity to make a few remarks which we might not have been able to do in time for introduction through the budget debate. I commend the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) for moving this motion.
It is not just the New Democratic Party which is concerned about the rank and Tile of Canada. I may disagree strongly with their approach, but I believe the aims and goals of our parties are the same. I think what we are looking for, as the budget, the Speech from the Throne and the 1971 budget said, is a fair shake, a fair share and more equity in the system. I think we agree in that area. Our disagreement is in how we arrive at that situation. There is a fundamental difference in political and philosophical views.
Turning to this motion, the papers are full of reports, which are increasing by the hour, of tragic situations in terms of payrolls and take home pay. Manufacturing plants are laying off people because the economic environment in Canada is so unstable that the normal economic forces are not working. I am in agreement with those members in the New Democratic Party who are genuinely concerned about the inability of the business cycle to break the boom-bust syndrome. I think that members in my own party have perhaps not spent enough money in research and effort to try to break that cycle. I think that inability, by those of us who support capitalist market system, to break that syndrome is what gives great fodder and opportunity to the socialist movement to come upon us.
November 19, 1981

I say to the few who are listening to my remarks here today that this is a challenge to all of us who want to see some freedom survive in our economic climate and market. I believe there has to be more effort by some to work as hard as some of us here work on that issue.
It is true that the workers of Canada are probably facing the most serious situation we have had since 1929 and 1930. There are a few of us here, including Mr. Speaker, who have lived through those days and years. At that time we were right back down to basics and we saw the tragedies of those times in terms of the human condition. We came out of a war and restructured a bright and beautiful vision in this country of Canada.
I was talking yesterday to a son of a Portuguese immigrant whose father arrived here penniless and worked through menial labour on farms and other jobs, probably worked six months a year and sweated and saved. He had a dream for his children whom he left behind in Portugal, and eventually he was able to bring his family to Canada through his sweat, labour and tears.
The family of that Portuguese immigrant have the same work ethic today as their father had and they have the same basic values. They are successful and well established in Canada today. They saw Canada as a dream, they came here and worked hard and created jobs and were always able to meet the payrolls they created.
Last night, the son of that Portuguese immigrant said: "Mr. Huntington, what is happening in this country today is what happened to my father in his homeland". The lack of incentive to work and produce, to grow a crop and the ability to take it to market, even a market in which the government was the receiver of the produce, caused that family to sell their farm and move, in poverty, to this new land where they had a dream. It was a dream which at least gave them the chance to break out of the chains of uniformity and egalitarianism.
We are dealing with that again today. What I find difficult about this situation is that the government, supported by the New Democratic Party, is doing everything it can to inhibit and stop a work-creating environment in Canada. One of the worst tragedies which I think has happened since I have been in this House is the attitude the government had toward an issue such as the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It has interfered, and the New Democratic Party forces have actively interfered in all the megaprojects we have had before us. If it is going to speak of an industrial strategy, it should not want to create massive shortages which would cause massive inflation. If it is going to talk about an industrial strategy, it has to talk about a plan for the use of human resources, capital and industrial resources which we have for the delivery of goods and services to the world marketplace as well as our own domestic marketplace.
By being energy self-sufficient by the year 1990, we had an opportunity to have full employment in this country. Instead,
Job Creation
government policies have led this country to have almost a million, and perhaps over a million, if we can understand these statistics, unemployed. This is a national shame and a national tragedy. It hangs heavy on my head that my efforts in this House have failed to bring about a conscious realization of what the government has been doing to this country during the last decade.
Full employment cannot be created unless there is a stable taxation environment. It is only through a stable taxation environment that a decision-making base can be created at large in this country. The innovators, the risk takers, the engineers, the architects and the tradesmen all depend on a stable taxation environment. The labour forces which are being laid off-according to newspaper articles of today and yesterday-also depend on a stable taxation environment in order to deliver a stable decision-making base for the industry and the marketplace in Canada.
Too much of our effort has been directed away from addressing the economic requirements of this era. We are wasting very valuable time around this place because of our refusal to get down to the things that count and that will protect and create jobs. The other day in this House-after some considerable thought because I do not like to be guilty of overstatements-I had to open up and say that, because of government policies which interfere with the heritage we in this country have in terms of work and fulfilling our dreams about our own homes and being constructively and effectively employed, we have deliberately created impediments to the population which has been coming out of our schools, trade schools and universities.
You cannot impose a socialist state from the top down. History has told us that. There has been death, carnage and revolution of the worst type whenever that has been tried. Some such empires have lived for a short time but, if we are to create a socialist state-and that is what we are doing in this country-


Erik Nielsen: "They" are.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, they are, not me. The government is. If we are to create a socialist state in this country, we cannot do it by having people fully and gainfully employed and working, achieving, buying, creating property and serving their dreams and goals. Because a people at work achieving goals and dreams is a happy and contented people. The opportunities have been too obvious for that to be our rightful aim and goal and our rightful heritage. The opportunities have been there, but this Liberal government has done everything it could to interfere with that progress.
We have massive unemployment today and it will accumulate. It is like a pack of dominoes tipping over and falling all the way to the end. Things are triggering other things today. Inventories are not moving. Retail sales are down. High interest costs have sucked the profits out of industries all across Canada, from manufacturing to secondary and tertiary distri-

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
bution. Hundreds of retail clerks are being laid off. Retail stores are reducing inventories. Those who serve retail strores are caught in the trap of having to supply; their inventories are not moving and all their profits are being drained off by high interest rates. The tragedies among the working people, the manufacturers and the creators of this country are all too real.
My tax dollars, $50 million of them-not that all $50 million are mine-are being spent on an advertising program. Every time I open up the newspaper I see people's money wasted on feeding propaganda to the press and controlling the press of this nation. The media of this nation are being controlled through tax dollars.


Mr. Kelly:: What paper is that?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The government is controlling the media. People are terrified about publishing a report against the government; they fear they will lose their money. They fear they will lose Canada Council grants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Hon. members opposite can laugh, but they should not get themselves locked in. That is the situation today in this country. The minister opposite should not laugh about this. He should cry in shame because, like mine, his freedom is threatened. The only difference is that he sits on the government side of the fence.
In 1968 we heard about a just society. There was a great call for a just society. In 1971 we were going to have a new taxation base which would allow equity and fairness across the country. The Carter principle was finally delivered to the land. We have had a decade of high legal costs, accounting costs and economic costs trying to adjust to that taxation base. We were just beginning to come out of the woods, but this Liberal government did not want that stability. Otherwise it would not have presented the budget it did on November 12. That budget removes stability. The hon. member opposite can shake his head-I think it is a head-but that budget in fact changes the taxation philosophy of this country.


Mr. Chenier:: It is fair. That is what you do not like.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Let us talk about fairness. The budget violates and offends the basic ability to pay tax. Is that fairness? Let the hon. member wait until we get into Committee of the Whole; he will find out that this government's twisted and perverted use of the words "fairness" and "equity" in this budget will fall down around his head. Never has an instrument been put to this House which has caused such overnight anguish and concern in the country. The Canadian Labour Congress is up in arms. Every single chartered accountant who is a tax expert in this country is up in arms and furious. Lawyers are furious. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has a list of grievances which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) wanted to wipe off the slate today as being inconsequential.
I have been in the small business game all my life.


An hon. Member:: So what? You are a millionaire.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: So what? Millionaires usually work two shifts a day and go without holidays for the first 15 or 20 years of their working lives. They are entitled to be millionaires. They are the ones who create capital and jobs. They are the ones who buy the machines that improve the productivity of the land. How many times have we heard the Minister of Finance tell us in this session that the only way to address the problem of inflation is by increasing productivity? That is the essential element today, but there is not one single item in the budget which addresses the national productivity problem.
In 1980 the economic performance of this nation was one of the worst in the western world after a decade of this government. There was 0.1 per cent economic growth in Canada compared with an OECD average of 1.2 per cent. Our economic performance last year ranked 21 among that of 24 OECD nations. We used to be third. We are now twenty-first out of 24. Our standard of living used to be third only to that of Sweden and the United States. Now our standard of living is thirteenth, behind The Netherlands and Finland. That is the decade of inheritance we have had since 1971. We had finally begun to adjust to the last budget, but where in this one has the problem of productivity or the problem of inflation been addressed? Nowhere. This budget has ripped out from under the Canadian industrial community its decision-making base.
There are two central themes in the MacEachen budget which are causing great concern. One is the retroactive effect of Resolution No. 9, which is the accrued investment income resolution, and the other is Resolution No. 23, which is the restricted interest expense resolution. That delivers retroactivity back on people who were law-abiding citizens under the laws prior to November 12, and they have been trapped, raped and crucified by this budget.
This budget removes one of the fundamental cornerstones of a fair and equitable tax system. It has removed the ability to pay one's tax. Just wait until the hours of debate come out on this across the nation. That is what the government has done to the nation as a result of its November 12 budget.
The government has created a terrible illusion with the top rate of tax being limited to 50 per cent. That reduces the tax rate of the wealthy. However, it has ballooned up all the other expenses that employers paid the cost of for employees across Canada. It ballooned up their gross income and their taxable income. The government is playing a very deceitful game with half-truths in this area.
When the government says the top rate is 50 per cent, all it is doing is shifting the burden on to the provinces. On budget night my province said it will have to find another $95 million. Over five years the federal government, through this budget, is taking $600 million from my province.
How many minutes do I have left, Mr. Speaker? None. I am only half-way through.
November 19, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is allowed 20 minutes on an opposition motion. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there have been many times in this House when the clear light of knowledge and information has been brought to bear on matters of some importance. I regret to say that this, unfortunately, is not one of those times. What we have listened to for the past hour or so is a replay of that time-honoured Japanese wrestling match where the two parties on the other side, trapped in their own dogmas, have locked themselves once again into immovable positions of ideology, without trying to bear with any new sense of insight, assessment or analysis upon the realities of the economic situation, which is serious and should be treated seriously.
It is regrettable that so much time and effort of this House is taken up simply having to listen once again to the purplish prose of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who seems to believe he is the only one in the world who cares, or the laissez-faire diatribes of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who seems to feel we can solve all the economic problems of the world by repeating the liturgy of Ayn Rand who ran out of ideas 40 years ago.
We are dealing with an important issue in this resolution. We are looking at the question of how to tackle some very significant and critical economic issues that face every country in the industrialized world, every country that is being affected by the turbulence of increased energy prices, changes in monetary flows, changes in the industrial structure and new introductions of technologies.
These are all problems which are part and parcel of our world. They are not something that is a product of Liberal government policy. We are not responsible for bringing Ronald Reagan into the White House. We are not responsible for the high interest policies of the Federal Reserve Board. We are not responsible for the exaggerated changes in oil prices of OPEC. However, they are problems we have to live with. They are issues we are trying to cope with.
The prescriptions put forward in the budget of a week ago, we believe, indicate the best kind of guidelines by which the Canadian economy can adjust to those difficulties. They indicate to us the kinds of policies and programs that will facilitate private activity and at the same time provide proper priorities for public expenditures at the federal level.
There is a basic thesis to the budget. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain rants and raves about economic chaos. In one of his more lucid moments, which were rare indeed in that speech, he said that the problem is high interest rates. We agree. That is why the thrust of the budget is to address itself
Job Creation
to the central issue of how to bring down inflation in this country. How do we tackle the insidious erosion of income of people to deal with the inflationary problem and thereby provide for a facilitation of interest rate policy to bring it down?
It is no accident that once again today interest rates fell, this time to a low of 15.4 per cent. They are coming down. It is not purely by capriciousness that they are there. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) was clearly trying to send forward signals in the economy by which this government would apply a policy of restraint in its expenditure and fiscal program, providing a signal to the entire capital market and therefore provide for an easing of rates.
The lay-offs that we face and the kinds of problems that are endemic in some of our manufacturing and resource areas are a product of high interest rates. The automobile industry has had a decline of 35 per cent of its sales in the United States because of the high interest rates in that country. If they cannot sell cars in the United States, workers are laid off in Canada. It is a fairly obvious proposition. We do not like it any better than anybody else. We are not relishing that fact, but we say we have to adopt a policy to try to ease the situation.
What would happen if we adopted the propositions put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain? All he talked about was taking great gobs of government money, throwing it in lumps on the problems and saying that that will solve them. When he said it was a simple proposition, he was wrong. It is a simplistic proposition. It does not answer the problem. It simply provides a thumb-sucking issue, some basis for his rhetorical outburst. However, it does not tackle the central issue, which is to deal with the inflationary problem we face in Canada. That is what we are trying to say in this budget.
As the Minister of Finance said, we have to provide a restraint policy, reducing the deficit by $2.5 billion in order to provide for a reduction in the pressure on money markets and ease the pressure on interest rates. That is a well-stated proposition. Members opposite who have spent so much time gnashing their teeth and wailing at the wall might be able to understand that they would gain the credit of the Canadian people if they endorsed such a policy rather than simply engaged in mental gymnastics, or the economics of fandangle which they are now engaged in, which make absolutely no economic sense. We have a policy related to the creation of long-term employment in this country. That is unlike the hon. member for Capilano who likes to see things through a dark mirror, and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain who has a prophetic mission. He has missed his calling. He should be an evangelical prophet. All he sees in the world is the chaos.
We on this side of the House have confidence in this country. We see that it has tremendous potential. It has ability to grow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 19, 1981
Job Creation


Lloyd Axworthy: Aside from the boos that are echoing in this chamber, the fact is there is tremendous growth potential. Of the last 15 months, 13 have shown a productive growth in employment, better than any country in the OECD. We have demonstrated that we can create jobs. In 1980 alone we created 330,000 jobs, the best record of any country. The only credit we get from those opposite is "do more".
We realize we are facing problems at this time. The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we are prepared to take hard decisions to face those problems and not fool ourselves with dogmatic fantasies pulled out of text books that were obsolete thirty years ago. That is the difference between members on this side of the House and that side.
Our approach to creating jobs is not to say there is a simplistic answer, as proposed by the NDP or Conservative party. We believe that one has to take a multiplicity approach and to engage government in a variety of investments. We have said in the budget papers set forward on economic development strategy that we will invest approximately $65 billion into economic development initiatives in this country in the next five years. This government has developed a wide variety of new technology investment in the economic development envelope so that we can help the Canadian economy to develop sectors of industrial resource activity with growth potential. The government has committed $1.5 billion this year alone to research and development so that it may provide for greater productivity.
The government is developing a new network of microelectronic centres across Canada so that it may engage in new product development in that critical area of the economy. Across Canada the government has established a number of investments. For example, Mitel Corporation, New Brunswick, is one of the most significant achievements where we moved a new industry into a high unemployment area. This is the government's ambition, Mr. Speaker. It is not simply to throw money away, as the NDP would like us to do, but to be careful, cautious and relevant in our investments and put the money where it will do the most good. That is the position of this government.
We do have a basic plan contained in our industrial strategy. There are potentials that must be unlocked and unleashed so that they create the kind of growth that the country is capable of. But we will not do this simply by banging a drum and beating it loudly; it must be done by careful planning and management. The government is putting in place the kind of management that will ensure that there is an allocation of those major industrial benefits across Canada.
The budget contains $1.4 billion for the modernization of the transportation system in western Canada. How often have we heard the rhetoric of the other parties saying that we must modernize the railway system? The difference between the parties opposite and our party is that they talk about it but we do it. Our money is on the table.


An hon. Member:: Is that an ironclad guarantee?


Lloyd Axworthy: The money is on the table, ready to modernize the transportation system in western Canada. Furthermore, we also see that that growth potential must be broadly shared by all members of the community. The money must be used by those who have been on the sidelines of the economic game. That is why we have included the sum of $345 million in the budget for the economic development of native people across Canada. It will give them the opportunity to develop their own enterprise; to develop their own business activity; to give them the capacity and ability to take advantage of the new resource wealth of western Canada.
It seems to me that is a major achievement of this government. We are putting the money where it will do the most good. We are allocating it where the need is greatest. We are putting it where those who can invest it carefully will benefit the most.
When members opposite broadbrush the strokes and say that there is nothing in the budget for anyone, it simply means that they are incapable of reading or comprehending what is contained therein; and it could be a combination of both. I think it is a form of ideological blindness. Hon. members simply do not want to see what is before them. That is the real problem. As long as that ideological blindness continues, then we will not see any kind of enlightened economic debate in this House. What we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is coming to grips with real problems.
For example, let me point out the condemnation raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), the once and future king of the Ontario NDP, who said, "Why are they doing direct employment jobs?" He says that is a piffle, a nothing. In this fiscal year we will invest $378 million of direct government funds into direct job creation, creating jobs for
80,000	Canadians in this fiscal year alone by direct employment means. That is a record worth talking about.
I do not know why it is that the member for Hamilton Mountain is so incapable of understanding or comprehending that that kind of investment will be allocated particularly in those areas where the needs are greatest. The hon. member talks about the fishermen in Newfoundland. We have allocated a special fund to the fishermen's union in Newfoundland to develop work projects, some 30 or 40 additional work projects, so that the fishermen remain employed and engaged in useful enterprises in that province. We allocated additional funds to the construction workers in Winnipeg, to the fishermen in British Columbia and the unemployed workers in Windsor. In other words, the government is allocating and targeting its direct employment funds and not throwing them around. The government is trying to use the money as we believe the taxpayers want us to use it, which is wisely and well and where the need is greatest. Those programs are in place.
Furthermore, the hon. member tends to neglect the other kinds of programs that this government has introduced. The ILAP program is designed to deal with communities that are experiencing major industrial problems and will provide grants
November 19, 1981

to new industries and to workers for retraining so that they may move to other jobs and develop new skills and capacities. It seems to me that that is a useful enterprise. The government is not saying it is perfect. But rather than standing at their desks and pounding them with wild abandon, what we would look to the NDP for are constructive alternatives, useful solutions and ideas as to how that program can perform more efficiently. All we receive from them is their rhetorical flourishes that add up to nothing when you look at the content for substance.
The government has put in place the industrial renewal board to deal with the major adjustments in the textile industry that will affect tens of thousands of workers. This is a new initiative designed to work in co-operation with private industry. The government is able to recruit some of the top flight business community to work with government to develop ways of helping those communities and workers adjust to their problems. The government is trying to tackle those issues, Mr. Speaker. We are concerned about those issues and attempting to apply innovative solutions. We are not simply standing on the floor of the House of Commons saying, "Why don't you practice our theories?" We are trying to proceed in a pragmatic, useful and effective way.
This resolution before us refers to the lack of an industrial strategy. An industrial strategy is not just pasting a bunch of principles on the wall. Again, it is putting something into play, putting something to work.
The hon. member for Capilano asks: "Why isn't the government doing something about the problem of skilled workers?" I say to the hon. member: Why doesn't he read the budget documents? Why isn't the hon. member aware of what is going on in this House? Why isn't he aware of this government's initiative last year of a major study of the manpower human resource needs of this country? Why isn't the hon. member aware that the government has signed a number of agreements with the coal mining industry, the forest industry and the ship-building industry to develop manpower plans in each of those industrial sectors? Why isn't he aware that presently the government is spending over $800 million in training 250,000 Canadians in new skills at the present moment?
Is the member from Capilano so unfeeling, so unseeing, that he is not prepared to recognize what is in front of him, that
250,000	Canadians will benefit from federal government training programs? Is the hon. member not aware of the new program that was introduced last year to bring women into non-traditional trades which this year alone has helped to recruit 2,500 women in non-traditional trades, 2,500 women who were not there before, to give them a chance in those trades? Is the hon. member not aware of the new training programs for the native people of this country which will give them a chance to gain new skills in those areas?
I stand sometimes in amazement at the unwillingness of members opposite to deal with these problems in a rational way and say that they accept and give credit for what is being done, but here are some ways of improving and changing it. Instead, hon. members opposite paint this picture of horrid
Job Creation
chaos around them to try to frighten and stampede Canadians. Their only purpose is for some minuscule political ambition.
Let us have a serious debate on economic problems.


An hon. Member:: Why did you close down the native school in Hay River?


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us look at what is in place. If the hon. member wants to talk about that, I will mention the additional $6 million put into the community employment program to provide for special requirements for native people moving to large towns and communities in western Canada. The government is developing the kind of ability to work with those groups, whether they are native people or women, so that we may tailor and harness government resources to their needs.
What we have in place now is the process by which we will put forward, in a matter of weeks, a serious and well-established program for national training across Canada. It was not designed unilaterally or arbitrarily, but after we listened to and received recommendations from the parliamentary committee, our own task force, the trade unions, business leaders and the social community. We have tackled our job in a careful and responsible manner and have arrived at a training program to fit the needs of the eighties.
When the hon. member opposite asks where the industrial strategy is, there it is, Mr. Speaker. It is being developed. It is being worked on.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is pitiful.


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member says that it is pitiful. What a sad, pitiful comment that is. The hon. member is so incapable of understanding the world around him that it is not possible for him to engage in what is taking place.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Do you really believe that?


Lloyd Axworthy: I always believe what I say, unlike the hon. member who obviously, by the nature of his speeches, lives in a world of fantasy.
We have in place in the budget and in a range of government programs a variety of measures to deal with the issues. But we are not satisfied with that. We do not believe that is sufficient. We believe we must put in place a program that will enable us to come to grips with the potential that this country has. What we put forward in the budget was a number of documents dealing with fiscal relations between the federal and the provincial governments to try to realign the balance of the resources in this country, to provide for a far more effective strategy in dealing with the problems of higher education so that we could begin to target the places where training and education can be most relevant to the economic, social and cultural objectives of the country.
We have put in place a basic reform of the tax system to bring about equity. The hon. member for Capilano stood on

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
his haunches and said that what we have in front of us is a tax measure that is making the accountants and lawyers-


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the minister would permit a brief question on his last point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to accept a question when I finish my remarks, if time is available.
The hon. member for Capilano, who is here defending the interests of the tax accountants and tax lawyers, was decrying one of the most important and probably one of the most liberal measures to be introduced in this country in years, and that is to make taxes equal for all Canadians and to eliminate advantage. When the hon. member says that this tax system is going to cause great injustices, I must ask, to whom? To his wealthy friends, his corporate partners? Is that who is going to be disadvantaged?
As the Minister of Finance pointed out, something like $47 billion in revenue was lost last year through special advantages and tax loopholes. One would think, considering all the posturing and parading that the New Democratic Party does daily about equity and justice in this society, that it might have a good word for that very fundamental reform that is contained in the budget speech. Did we hear a word about that from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)? No, not a peep. That makes members on this side of the House wonder whether their interest really is in equity and justice. Are they really on the side of the small taxpayer with a family of four, who, as a result of the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance, will not have to pay taxes on an income which is under $15,000? That budget measure contains a basic and fundamental thesis, and that is that the best way to ensure fairness in our system is to ensure fairness in the tax system.
We would accept the support of other parties. When they sit down and study these measures, they will realize that this principle is important and that far too many people in this country have for far too long gained an unfair advantage through the tax system. We are prepared to put that right.
I believe the budget document sets forward effective guidelines for the management of the economy in the 1980s. There is a series of proposals designed to bring down inflation and, therefore, unleash productivity in this country. There are measures to bring forward better equity and fairness in the tax system so that individual Canadians will know that they are equal one to another.
Most important, Mr. Speaker, there is a broad commitment to the issue of renewal, and to understanding that this country has tremendous growth potential. What we have to do is target in on different structural problems such as research and development, manpower and planning, industrial investment and sector analysis. All this is contained in the budget document. It is the kind of document that will provide a basis for discussion and consultation with the private sector in the
months and years to come. In this way we can arrive at mutually acceptable strategies and development programs. That is the reason for the budget. It makes good sense in this time of turmoil because it is based upon pragmatics, not upon outdated philosophies.
I hope that Canadians will realize that, the budget resolution provides that the most effective way to create jobs in Canada is through proper economic management and not simply by relying upon the outworn, ideological, textbook positions put forward in the introductory remarks of the previous speaker.
I hope that hon. members dealing with the resolution now before the House will realize that it seems to be simply an exercise in common room philosophy rather than pragmatic policy. That is probably one reason why we are on this side of the House and they are perpetually on that side of the House!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister indicated his willingness to clarify his concept of fairness and equity. As he will know, the indirect taxes which apply to all Canadians, senior citizens, people below the poverty line and so on, have doubled in the brief term of office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). When he took over, those taxes represented $100 per month per household. Today they represent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not been recognized for a speech. If he wants to put a question to the minister, a question is in order, but he appears to be engaging in a speech at this point.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I will put my question directly. The minister tried to show to the House that hidden taxes had not gone up. Is he trying to say that they have not doubled and are not now $200 per month per household? Does he believe that hidden taxes are equitable-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am pleased to answer the hon. member by pointing out to him that the government and the Minister of Finance have provided for substantial increases in the income supplement for old people. We were able to reduce the price for energy proposed by the previous government so that the consumer has a better deal. We have reduced unemployment insurance premiums by about 15 per cent in this year alone. So I would say that we had allocated our scarce resources to helping those who need help most. Whatever particular fantasy the hon. member believes about hidden taxes, I suggest that rather than looking in his crystal ball, he should look at the budget instead of whatever peculiar Figures he seems to be drawing out of the hat.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the hon. minister, I think that all hon. members of this House would surely agree that this government just has no shame. For instance, in response to the question put by my
November 19, 1981

colleague as to whether the minister would not agree that there is a substantial increase in indirect taxation, the minister, in effect, talked about certain other things and then said, "Well, instead of looking into a crystal ball, look into the budget." 1 will take the minister up on that.
This is what is stated in the budget document entitled "The Budget in More Detail", at page 71. I hope the minister is listening, because he says that this is the proper information. The sentence to which I refer states:
The gross petroleum compensation charge and Canadian ownership charge revenues are largely responsible for the 54.1 per cent growth in indirect taxes in 1981-82.
If one looks at the table on the next page, based on the national accounts table, Table 9.3, what the government is talking about is a growth in indirect taxes from $13.3 billion to $20.5 billion. There will be an increase of more than $7 billion in indirect taxes, the most regressive tax any government can inflict on the public. This government has the colossal audacity, through the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), to tell us that we are looking into crystal balls when we hint that, somehow or other, there is an increase in indirect taxation in this country.


Mr. Crosby:: Shame, shame!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I notice that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is in his place. Your Honour will recall that during question period he had those crocodile tears about what he called that "unfortunate, regressive tax" that the provincial government in Quebec has imposed on those who use gasoline in that province. I am not defending the Quebec government, but let me point out that if the Quebec government has imposed such a regressive tax, it was set the example by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He was the one who, through his energy approach, lifted more money in a shorter space of time through one tax measure than any minister or government has ever done before in the history of Canada. In short-


An hon. Member:: How much was yours?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -we find that every time a litre of gasoline is sold today at an estimated price of 36.7 cents per litre, the total amount going into the federal coffers is 12.4 cents. That is the truth.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Where was your tax going?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In truth, the government has set upon a policy where, through indirect taxation and various other tax means, it is lifting billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, not to reduce the deficit, but simply to swell its spending even further than the projected line of spending for the government, which was revealed to us when we took office in 1979 and we were exposed, for the first time, to the trend lines of the former Liberal government.
One of the backbenchers on the Liberal side has questioned our spending level. I am very surprised he raised that because he must have checked those figures out himself.
Job Creation


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He will know that on a national accounts basis, the budget which was brought in by our party anticipated a spending level which would have been $17.25 billion less by 1984 than the budget which was brought into this House on November 12.


Mr. Evans:: You never could have lived within those estimates and you know it!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In short, we have a government here which is so shameless that, notwithstanding the fact that it has totally distorted the spending and revenue picture in Canada at the federal government level, it has the audacity to start saying that this is a budget of restraint.
The hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration stood up and said, "You cannot blame us for various things. We cannot be blamed for Ronald Reagan's election to the White House, we cannot be blamed for the federal reserve board's decisions, and we cannot be blamed for the OPEC decisions and this type of thing". The truth is that the government surely takes the credit when it goes the other way. The minister referred to interest rates without clarifying, incidentally, that the Canadian rates are 3 per cent to 4 per cent higher, across the board, than the American rates. Within a minute of the minister saying that, he turned around and took credit for falling interest rates. If he had nothing to do with rising interest rates, why should he then get some credit for falling interest rates?


John Leslie Evans: Which way do you want it?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That partly bearded member over there has asked, "Which way do we want it"? It is not which way we want it. It is what is fair for the Canadian public.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: I know, but you blame everybody and never give credit, so what's the difference?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When the Minister of Employment and Immigration says that the interest rate is falling, he forgets to point out that it is still more than one percentage point higher than at any time in previous Canadian history. That is what he fails to make clear to the Canadian public.
Having said that, the minister then turns around, without even blushing, and says that the central issue is inflation and that this government is really doing something about it. He says, "We have brought the deficit down by $2.5 billion." What does he mean by that? This is what he apparently means. In fiscal year 1981, the decifit was $12.6 billion. In the year we are just going into the deficit will be $13.3 billion. Most public school children would say that that looks as though the government will go into the hole about $700 million more.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: "Sine" misses everything, misses the point all the time.

November 19, 1981
Job Creation


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: However, that is not what these fellows are talking about. When they say there will be a $2.5 billion reduction, they are talking about 1986. They are talking about some type of projection that they say will mean a deficit of $10.2 billion by 1986, compared to $13.3 billion at the present time. In short, it is just a dream, because we know that the one thing one can count on concerning this government is that its projected expenditure levels are the floor. Those projected levels will surely be attained; it is only a question of how much more the government will add to those levels and how big its deficit will be.
When we were introduced to Liberal economics upon being elected to power, I was absolutely stunned when the Treasury Board showed me that the ongoing anticipated deficit if the Liberals had been left in power would be $18 billion by 1984. If one looks at the present figures, one will see that if the government had not grabbed $9 billion further from the Canadian public, that is exactly the deficit figure it would be living with by 1984. That is this government in action; yet the Minister of Employment and Immigration says that to ensure jobs in the future we need, to use his words, proper economic management. If he believes that and if he has any heart for the people who are now being thrown out of work and are without jobs, largely due to his inaction, he had better resign tonight and show his protest against a government which has shown it does not know the meaning of the words "proper economic management".
When I say that, let us not forget that the federal gross national debt, as a result of this government's actions, will be about $119 billion. That represents for every taxpayer in the country a debt load of $12,500. It means, if one likes, that with interest rates at their present level it will cost taxpayers $14.5 billion this year, amounting to another $750 per taxpayer.
To put that into perspective, you can assume that at least half of that debt is not necessary, which is a fair assumption bearing in mind that when the emperor first took power the total debt in this country was only $20 billion. This budget indicates that by next year an additional $100 billion of new debt will be on the shoulders of Canadians. Surely it is not unreasonable to say that at least half of that was totally unnecessary, and if that is so, that means approximately $900 of unnecessary burden is being placed year in and year out on every taxpayer in Canada.
Think what that $900 would do to help the poor of this country. Think what it would do if it were not being spent on yesterday's debt for interest charges. Think what it would do to help the unemployed, the senior citizens and those in need of better health care. That is the insidious thing which this government is doing. In short, it is squandering public money day in and day out. The government is squandering it to the point of going further and further into debt to pay yesterday's grocery bills, at the same time loading more and more debt not only on the people of today but on future generations to come.
Having said that, I noticed that the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated that somehow there was an industrial strategy in place and that productivity was somehow a desirable thing. Let me point out that when the Liberals are asked to explain their high unemployment statistics, as a rule they like to respond by talking about job creation. For example, we hear the Liberals say that in 1980 job creation went up 2.9 per cent as far as total employment is concerned. Although they say that, they then admit in the next sentence that there was zero growth as far as Canada's economy was concerned in 1980. Therefore, what the Liberals are saying is that their economic measures were so improperly placed that it took
286,000	more people working in Canada to produce exactly the same gross national product that we produced in 1979. In fact, as a result of the government's mismanagement we find that for the last four years on a per worker basis an actual deterioration in Canadian workers' real income has occurred because of the government's actions.
In short, how can we have this minister somehow or other attempting to take credit for what he feels is a good job-creation record while at the same time we know that, with 891,000 Canadians out of work, we have continued to post the worst record for unemployment among the major OECD countries? That is this government in action.
Again using OECD figures, we find that between 1973 and 1980 Canada had an average productivity growth of 0.2 per cent. That is one-third of the productivity growth in the United States. During that same period productivity growth in the United Kingdom was 1.5 per cent, Germany 3.1 per cent, France 2.7 per cent, Italy 2.2 per cent and Japan 3.4 per cent. Surely most members would agree that a government with that kind of a record, one that attempts to justify its budget brought in here on November 12, in truth has no shame when it starts to pretend that its record entitles it to the confidence of this House.
Perhaps when we deal with statistics we lose sight of the human element. We forget about the people who are actually being thrown out of work. I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is in the House. I hope that before today's end he will stand up and explain a few things. I hope he will explain to the people of Kitchener why it was necessary for Budd Canada Ltd. to give indefinite lay-off notices on Monday, November 16, to 826 of its 1,100 employees. We should bear in mind that Budd Canada Ltd. employed 3,100 workers two and a half years ago and this latest lay-off will reduce that number to a mere 700 employees. Surely some minister on that side of the House must feel that he has to give an explanation why that kind of situation is occurring.
Perhaps some minister can tell us about Canadian Admiral Corporation, an appliance manufacturer which has shut down its operations in Mississauga, Cambridge and Montmagny, Quebec. On November 13 that company issued dismissal notices to 2,450 employees. The key reason for this, the company said, was the high interest rate structure and lack of
November 19, 1981

sales because of the international competition the company has had to face.
Perhaps the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce can tell us why he takes great pride, as the minister responsible for FIRA, in the sad tale of Irwin-Dorsey Ltd. of Canada, a subsidiary of an Illinois Company. For those who are not familiar with the situation, this company employed 25 people in the Georgetown area of Ontario. It was doing about $5 million worth of sales largely in the texbook field, but Irwin-Dorsey had the misfortune of having its parent taken over by Dow Jones of New York.
As a result of Dow Jones of New York taking over the American parent, FIRA was triggered and was asked to pass on whether there should be a divestment of the Canadian subsidiary as a result of the change of ownership from one American to another American. In brief, FIRA was asked to find that there was a bad American coming in to control this company and presumably replace a good American. The American company fought the FIRA decision triggered by the then secretary of state. I see the secretary of state who made the decision is here in the House. He said that he did not think it was right to have a foreign ownership component in that company.
The decision was fought all the way to the Supreme Court. The FIRA decision was upheld and guess what is happening. The factory will be closed by December 31. The books will be shipped into Canada with no customs paid from Illinois. Through that minister's absolute bungling he has told 25 Canadians that they are no longer entitled to work in Canada because he prefers to have Americans doing their job instead of them.
To make matters worse, the minister is telling companies such as Mitsui, which is the thirty-ninth largest company in Canada doing $1.5 billion worth of business here and employing 140 people, that if they want to open up factories or other facilities in Canada, a lot of red tape has to be gone through, but if they want to continue producing their goods in foreign countries and shipping them to Canada, they are welcome.
To put $1.5 billion into perspective, Dofasco does exactly the same amount of business in Canada and employs 14,100 people compared to the 140 employed by Mitsui. In spite of this, we have a minister telling us that we have an industrial strategy in place. If it is an industrial strategy, it is a tragedy.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions
Job Creation
to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Canadian Armed Forces-Possible participation in Sinai Desert peacekeeping operation, (b) Request for details of proposed participation; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Railways-Pensions of retired workers, (b) Reported purchase of Gulf Oil stock by Canadian National Railways pension fund; the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)-The Constitution-Provision respecting mandatory retirement.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Deans:
That this House condemns the government's budget for (a) not introducing new job-creation measures in the light of the largest number of pre-Christmas lay-offs experienced since the Depression (b) the complete rejection of an effective industrial stragegy to provide long-term jobs and thus a cynical reversal of the government's election promises.
Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate today, but I would first like to point out that I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and that you probably took me for another of my colleagues whom I must look like.
Before getting to the heart of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to some of the comments made by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I think that even though he was here on the evening of the budget, his mind was probably somewhere else. Since he spoke about the deficits of the Liberal government which he predicted will be enormous and near disastrous, I urge him to go back and read the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on November 12. I can even tell him what page of Hansard to look up, page 12726, and he will find that during the 1980-81 fiscal year, we effectively reduced the budgetary deficit by about $2 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I simply do not understand why our friends opposite take pleasure in trying to exaggerate the present economic crisis by quoting figures that are often unfounded and by attempting to ridicule the very significant proposals made by this government to create employment in the have-not regions and to take very concrete measures to counter our current difficulties. I would go even further, Mr. Speaker,

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
regarding the figures quoted by the hon. member when he said, if 1 did not misunderstand him, that in 1984-85, we would have a deficit of approximately $18 billion, unlike what we have forecast.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to come back to this excellent budget speech which shows that the government is anxious to solve the economic problems of Canada, to this budget speech in which the Minister of Finance stated that, because the government wants to reduce inflation on the one hand, and the budgetary deficit on the other, our deficit would probably drop to $6.6 billion in 1982-83 and to $5.5 billion in 1983-84, thanks to our policies. 1 believe that the Minister of Finance and his government really want to show that they are taking vigorous action to reduce inflation and our budgetary deficit. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of the motion now before the House is suggesting that the government is not doing anything to create jobs, that it is unable to realize that the entire country is going through difficult times and that unemployment affects some regions more than others.
In the few minutes allotted to me, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to show that the government, more particularly the Department of Employment and Immigration, sponsors various programs which indeed counter the criticisms levelled at us by the opposition parties and directly come to grips with this job-creation problem. Our department offers a series of programs to meet those problems and the time has come indeed to speak about the community employment programs. We have the Local Employment Assistance Programs-LEAP for short.
A new program has also been implemented during the last fiscal year by the Department of Employment and Immigration in co-operation with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, here again to solve the lasting problems peculiar to certain regions. Those extremely important and worthy programs are the LEDA programs. We have also set up other programs on which I will comment in more detail later on.
I simply want to point out that those community employment programs have enabled us to create tens of thousands of jobs over the last fiscal year. If those are not concrete measures taken by our government to reduce unemployment and face trying conditions, I wonder how our friends opposite consider the action of the government in those fields. I might add that when the government created those jobs, it paid very particular attention to our younger people. Our government and the minister who heads the department are greatly concerned about them.
During the summer of last year, we created 49,200 jobs for our young people across Canada, 13,924 in Quebec alone. That means an investment of $100 million in job creation for our youth. We must realize that we live in a free enterprise system where it is especially up to the private sector to generate jobs. While recognizing this principle, our government, through these various programs, also wants to help and
support the private enterprise in its job-creation function. This is how in every province, and in every region, in co-operation with private enterprise, we did manage to create jobs. Obviously, some of these jobs are temporary. But even these temporary jobs help thousands of young Canadians acquire the necessary experience to guide them in one direction and will reveal an ability for certain types of work, and this will allow them to get into the job market and find a permanent job.
We should also note, Mr. Speaker, that these temporary programs are aimed at various groups in our society. They will help women, and other groups such as the handicapped and people with social and economic problems to find work. Perhaps I could start by explaining in greater detail some community development projects. May I remind members of the official opposition, who blame us for not creating jobs in Canada, that during the short time that we were in opposition and their party was in power it was they who decided to do away with these community development projects. If they had stayed in power, what would have happened to all our job creation programs? Fortunately, the Canadian people saw the light and nine months later re-elected a government that is sensitive to and able to understand the economic problems of the country and can act in such a way as to create and maintain these programs which our regions desperately need to create new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, early this summer the minister announced that $113,400,000 would be spent on phase two of the Community Development Projects, $38 million of which-34 per cent- was earmarked for the Province of Quebec. This, Mr. Speaker, helped to create 6,560 jobs in Quebec. I also feel, Mr. Speaker, that I am in a position to speak with some authority on these Community Development Projects, since I represent the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, where the unemployment rate during the winter is between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. These community development programs, Mr. Speaker, have helped to create jobs during the past few years in my riding and in our region. These job-creation programs have been in existence since 1973, and have helped us not only to create the usual temporary jobs, but also to establish infrastructures, which subsequently made it possible for most of the 45 municipalities within the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine to hire employees on a permanent basis.
This year again, Mr. Speaker, my riding will receive $2.5 million for job creation. I can assure the House that these funds are spent wisely, and that on the strength of several years' experience, we shall be successful in creating permanent jobs. We are repairing facilities in small fishing ports and establishing small industries which subsequently become going concerns-that is how we can create permanent jobs, Mr. Speaker. It is to be hoped, and in fact I am sure, that the government will continue to use such programs to relieve unemployment and fight joblessness in areas such as eastern
November 19, 1981

Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and some part of western Canada, and so provide work for more people.
There is another program, Mr. Speaker, to which I referred earlier, and which I feel is one government program precisely to promote the development of as many industries as possible in our region. I am referring to the LEDA program, that is, Local Economic Development Assistance. Last year, Mr. Speaker, 1 was pleased to be involved in announcing one of these projects in eastern Quebec, namely on the Magdalen Islands which are part of my riding, because with unemployment rates as high as the ones I mentioned earlier, we need this kind of program.
In our area, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that although we do have entrepreneurs and people who have a certain amount of capital and ideas to contribute to the development of our economy, the stumbling block is always either a lack of technical assistance or some risk capital. With the program created by the Department of Employment and Immigration, in co-operation with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we will now be able to help these people through the critical phase of installing or establishing a factory or a company, until they can operate on a permanent basis. Obviously, requests for these programs are received from areas throughout Canada.
Indeed, 13 projects are now under way or on trial, and I am sure that others will be forthcoming. Mr. Speaker, it must also be added that such programs, especially this one, are not intended to replace banks, credit unions and other lending institutions. It merely supplements those lending institutions, and the groups interested in that project must apply first to a lending institution or to the Federal Business Development Bank. Now, as can be seen, this very important program could assist rural and semi-rural areas where permanent jobs could he created. We are accused of failing to create permanent jobs throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I have just pointed out a very important program which will enable us to create permanent jobs in various areas.
There is also another program, Mr. Speaker, that has a low profile but is extremely important, the Local Employment Assistance Program commonly known as LEAP. As I said, the program is aimed at people in difficulty, because in high unemployment areas or areas with special problems, some individuals have difficulty first finding a job and secondly keeping it. I think there are specific problems in that respect in a number of areas, but our goal with LEAP is indeed to address that problem. It enables individuals to work on a three-year basis in a given field in order that they may acquire the skills needed to find and keep a job. These programs are on a 12-month basis at first, with an adjustment or program development phase, and $100,000 grants are allotted for their inception.
Then in the operational phase, that extends over a three-year period, as I said, $275,000 is paid in grants to cover up to
Job Creation
50 per cent of salaries within a given industry. Again I can state, Mr. Speaker, that my constituency has benefited from the program. Our friends opposite might be interested to know that in the constituency of Bonaventure we succeeded in creating five industries that are extremely important and will give permanent employment to local people. This is the main thing, Mr. Speaker, to be able to work on a permanent basis. That is why these programs are extremely important and must be maintained.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to another program that is also most important, the Community Development Projects program. It is also a program that is aimed at a group of people that otherwise could not progress any further.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is a New Democratic Party motion, and I am certain this is the first time in a very long time that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not in his seat. I do not know whether the hon. member is watching this debate today, but I am certain that he will be reading Hansard and I want to express my best wishes to him for a very speedy recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: The motion put forward today uses such phraseology as "the largest number of pre-Christmas lay-offs", and that brings to my mind lay-offs in automotive industry, and also the farm equipment industry which has been dealt with previously. The motion also uses the word "depression", and that obviously reflects the state of the Canadian agricultural industry today. The motion uses the words "a cynical reversal of the government's election promises", and that is nothing new.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I have equal regard and equal compassion and concern for all the citizens of this country who are fighting, but failing, to maintain their homes, their businesses or their farms. My desire would be to deal equally with all these groups. However, because of the lack of time and my special responsibility in this House, I must deal with the latter group, the Canadian food producers and farmers. In doing so I refer to this country's basic and most vital industry, the food production industry. I will not be speaking just about the 5 per cent of Canadians who produce food nor just the 25 per cent of Canadians who are employed either directly or indirectly in the total food chain, nor just the 23 million or 24 million people in this country, but, indeed, the many human beings who reside throughout what could be described, without any stretch of the imagination, as the hungry world.
As I indicated earlier, seldom, with the possible exception of certain isolated cases in the great depression of 1929, can one
12944

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
recall when Canadian agriculture experienced such severe and, in many instances, completely devastating financial conditions.
Some might ask why farmers are different, and that is a fair question which deserves an answer. The best answer I can find is one which has been given by Mr. Donald Shaughnessy, a chartered accountant, in his article entitled "Dollars sense". Under the byline "farmers may not survive high cost of borrowing", the first case Mr. Shaughnessy makes indicates that almost all independent farmers are at least in part debt financed. They borrow heavily by necessity to start, they borrow heavily by necessity to operate, and general operating costs are fixed and therefore unavoidable. It is impossible through management to lower those costs significantly. What he means is that a farmer cannot rationally starve or reduce his livestock in numbers or ruin his land.
The second point Shaughnessy makes deals again with an important difference. In farming the revenue-to-asset ratio is extremely low compared with other businesses. This revenue-to-asset ratio is normally as low as one to five or one to ten in farming. In other words, $1 million worth of assets may only produce $100,000 to $200,000 in revenue. In other businesses such as retailing this same ratio normally is two to one or perhaps even three to one. Shaughnessy concludes by indicating that this wide difference in revenue-to-asset ratio means at the bottom line that a general interest rate increase of from 10 per cent to 20 per cent is at least ten times more damaging to farmers than to retailers.
Generally speaking, four problems have contributed to the current financial dilemma in the agricultural industry. The first is the inability for most, if not all, producers to secure adequate returns for their produce in the marketplace. That really should be the fair approach. I had a conversation with one of my constituents last evening, a chap by the name of Jessie Dennis from the east end of my riding, and he indicated to me that if we could only achieve the goal of a fair return- after all, that is where most businesses derive the majority of their incomes-then we would not need a dollar of public money.
The second problem is the ever-increasing costs of farm inputs and particularly petroleum-based products. The third problem is low commodity prices, particularly today, but this has been a problem for quite some time. This is concentrated primarily in the red meat sector. The fourth problem is insidious and astronomic floating interest rates. In far too many cases the latter problem puts the ice cube into the fuel line.
Although a greater degree of financial stability does exist today in certain sectors which are under supply management-that does provide a marketing tool-they are not in any way fully protected against these problems or fully compensated. If these problems continue, producers will continue to lose substantial amounts of equity. In cases of high debt-to-equity ratio operations, financial distress will occur and they eventually will be forced out of business. What I am saying is that given today's conditions it is really only a matter of time.
The operating input cost picture might best be illustrated by providing the following examples, and this is a cost increase comparison between 1970 and 1980 given in percentage terms. The cost of petroleum products went up 166 per cent; mixed fertilizers, up 197 per cent; pesticides, up 243 per cent; feed and seed, up 160 per cent; and-listen to this one-interest, 360 per cent.
It should be noted that these increases do not contain the rapidly escalating increases in 1981 of energy and interest costs. Indeed, if interest costs remain high, and when energy costs double over the next couple of years, these costs will show like increases in about half the time. Total debt on Canadian farms in 1960 was as low as $1.6 billion. In 1970 it had increased to $4.2 billion. In 1979 it increased to $13 billion. It is estimated that in 1981 the total farm debt in Canada could be as high as $15 billion.
The cost of servicing this debt at a 10 per cent interest rate with improved market conditions could be described as manageable, but the cost of servicing this debt at depressed market prices and at a 20 per cent interest rate is obviously impossible to meet. Interest paid by Ontario farmers in 1979 amounted to $373 million, up from some $95 million in the five-year average period from 1970 to 1974. In 1981 the calculated interest paid by Ontario farmers is expected to be about $621 million. That amount surpasses the total income of Ontario farmers.
I had a conversation a couple of days ago with Mr. Henry Epp, who is the president of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Producers Marketing Board, and he expressed concern not only about interest rates but also about energy costs. He indicated to me that about five years ago it required less than $10,000 to heat one acre of greenhouse. Today that figure has increased to $40,000 per acre and, when one projects the requirement for 1985, that $40,000 figure could easily be doubled.
Reference has been made to the fact that farmers buy retail and sell wholesale and that farmers have been under a wage and price control policy for years. That is accurate and true. The example I want to use has been prepared by a chap who farms in Victoria county, a Mr. Seldon Parker. He quite appropriately has used corn as an example. The following clearly demonstrates the loss in purchasing power of that commodity. Incidentally, we hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) talking day after day about the number of programs in effect. One of his favourite themes is the advantages of advance payments, but corn does not qualify. Ontario's largest cash crop does not qualify for advance payments.
Mr. Parker has used January, 1973, for his example, and he has used one bushel of corn. In 1973 a bushel of corn sold for $1.68. In the other column he shows the price in the fall of 1981. Today corn is selling at $2.96 a bushel. He has taken his purchasing power in 1973 and the number of items he has to purchase, converted that to bushels and compared it in bushel terms to what would be required today.
November 19, 1981

In 1973 a repair job on his combine required 92 bushels of grain. Incidentally, at that time in dollar terms the job cost him $155. He had the same repair job done last fall at a cost of $1,176. In terms of corn, it required 434 bushels.
A tonne of ammonium nitrate in 1973 required 43 bushels of corn. It now requires 94 bushels. In 1973 a bushel of corn purchased six gallons of diesel fuel. This fall it required 2.7 bushels of corn.
In 1973 he paid his property taxes by marketing 293 bushels of corn. This fall he required 405 bushels of corn to pay those same property taxes. In 1973 he required 818 bushels to pay those expenses for a cost of $1,300. This fall, 1981, he required twice as many bushels, 1,595 bushels, with a dollar value of $4,709.
Simply to get parity with 1973 costs, corn would have to sell at $5.75 a bushel. That would require an increase of $2.80. The difference is exactly what corn is selling for now. To break even and get back to where he was in 1973, corn would have to double in price.
I mentioned earlier that the situation was more severe for the red meat industry. I am sure the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), who is very concerned about this, will speak on this subject in the days ahead. I would like to cite a survey of some 93 beef farmers in three Ontario counties, Bruce, Grey and Wellington, which showed that 42 of the 93 had debts worth more than 75 per cent of what they owned and 23 had debts that exceeded their assets. It would appear that most of these producers whose debts exceeded 75 per cent of their assets are in serious financial difficulty at the present time. Most of those farmers will not likely be able to finance their cattle operation in 1982. The average debt of those 93 farmers was $405,000. Nine of them had liabilities of more than $1 million and one had a debt of $2.2 million. Most of the debt is at floating interest rates which have doubled in the past year while beef prices have remained low.
The survey also showed that only seven of the farmers answering the questionnaire showed a profit of more than $5,000, while 22 of them said they lost more than $75,000 in 1981. To cope with interest rates of more than 20 per cent, 12 farmers sold off land or machinery, four of them liquidated their assets, six got an off-farm job and 23 of them, for whatever good it might do, took out another mortgage. That survey looked at only three Ontario counties. It is interesting to note that Senator Harry Hays, a former minister of agriculture, now in the other place, reportedly said that this problem is general across Canada.
Let us look at the stress, strain, frustration and depression that financial situations like these cause in a rural county. I want to refer to Mrs. Giselle Ireland, a spokesperson for the 250-member Concerned Farm Wives. She said her group studied 100 farm families in Bruce and Grey counties and found them constantly worried about bank payments, with high interest rates and beef prices that have led to huge losses and leaves many farmers merely working for the bank. She
Job Creation
said that farmers are traditionally peace-loving people and that they would rather stay on the farm and do what they do best instead of going out and raising hell; but the feeling of being choked over a period of time leaves a sense of hostility and the urge to fight back.
Problems show up in the doctor's office as well. Alan Abelson, a doctor at the Chesley Medical Clinic, said an increasing number of patients are complaining of domestic and financial problems when they come for what he described as routine physical examinations. Dr. W. Knox, a medical doctor from Kincardine, Ontario has stated publicly that, as a result of the economic stress on the rural community, there is a growing awareness among the physicians of his area that there are indeed stresses in many forms appearing in the family unit. He further stated it was the over-all impression that if the current economic stress continues, more serious medical problems will follow.
It is obvious that floating interest rates are sinking many Canadian farmers. The red flags are up. Many farmers and business people have already thrown in the towel. Farm bankruptcies do not tell the whole story. They are only the tip of the iceberg. Farm bankruptcies do, however, indicate the trend.
By the use of the government's own statistical information, we see that farm bankruptcies ahave increased by 147 per cent when we compare the first half of 1979 to the same half of 1981; 147 per cent against 25 per cent over the same period compared to manufacturing, construction, transportation, trade and service industries. If we look at the number of bankruptcies from January 1 to September of this year, we find that there were 191. If we extend that period by one month from January 1 to October 1, we see an increase to 230. Only a fool or an idiot would suggest that all is well in the farm community.
Understandably, this financial crisis has not stopped at the farm gate. Rural commercial business centres are reporting 50 per cent declines in sales and service. Farm service industries are reporting not only declines in sales, but alarming increases in accounts receivable and bad debts.
For example, Robert Laning of Norfolk county, and owner and manager of a very large and diversified farm implement agency, indicates that nobody is buying, and he cannot blame them. I have known Mr. Laning for at least 20 years. He is a very progressive and industrious businessman. He operates a farm dealership and services some 500 machinery and equipment dealer outlets throughout Canada, primarily in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes.
He has indicated that interest costs to service his inventory have increased by 230 per cent over the past 24 months. His accounts receivable over 60 days have increased by 200 per cent in the last 20 months. He predicts that 30 per cent or more of the dealerships will not survive beyond 1982 if present financial conditions continue. This results in the decline of service and repairs for farmers. This in itself is costly, particularly during the planting and harvesting period. We sometimes run into the ridiculous situation where a $50,000 or $100,000

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
piece of equipment can remain idle during harvest time while waiting for a $5 part.
I recognize that the budget did provide a one-shot $50 million to the Farm Credit Corporation and a commitment to extend the Small Business Development Bond. The Small Business Development Bond has been completely gutted. It is not a long-term source of capital. My colleague for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) indicated today a memo had been circulating from head office through the banks instructing them to place a moratorium on the use of the Small Business Development Bond.
The $50 million to the Farm Credit Corporation again is in the right direction but is not an adequate source of long-term capital. In fact, $45 million of that $50 million will be paid back with principal and interest at 11 % per cent for the first two years and at the full interest rate beyond that period of time.
In this state of emergency then, only $5 million and not $50 million can be designated for special assistance. The Farm Credit Corporation officials admit it will assist only-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) may continue his speech only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Wise: I can assure the Chair that I will not abuse that privilege.
The Farm Credit Corporation officials have expressed some disappointment. They have indicated that such a measure will assist only about 350 farmers. Duncan Allan, the newly appointed deputy minister for agriculture and food in Ontario indicated that it might assist one in 15 Ontario farmers. I indicated before, in all fairness, that the direction of course is positive, but the degree of support is disgraceful. This kind of assistance, given the state of the industry, is nothing short of an insult to Canadian farmers. The present condition of Canadian agriculture demands that the government take action now in a number of areas.
First, a moratorium must be imposed on farm bankruptcies, foreclosures and forced sales. Some people have questioned this. Why? It is to prevent 24-hour auction sales, to prevent the sale of productive assets, to eliminate the sale of valuable livestock at slaughterhouse prices and to give the necessary time for governments to put into place programs and policies for the survival and recovery of this industry. That is the wisdom behind such a moratorium.
Second, the Farm Credit Corporation must receive at least $500 million immediately. The required funds could be used exclusively to subsidize interest rates and the remainder could be used to provide the necessary funds to allow the corporation to continue its necessary function.
The Christian Farmers Federation has called for an FCC fund increase of 25 per cent. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for an increase of $1 billion. Fifty million dollars would subsidize an interest rate by 5 per cent for $1 billion worth of debt. Farm Credit Corporation funds are not grants, nor are they handouts. These funds are repaid with principal and interest. Funds of this magnitude would lower a significant number of debts from 20 per cent down to a more manageable level. That is the wisdom of such requests, Mr. Speaker.
Third, the Small Business Development Bond will be administered solely by the banks, if indeed they will participate in it. In order to ensure a reasonable degree of equity and fairness in the decision, an independent review agency should be established with representation from the AGRA community.
Fourth, this government has missed a golden opportunity to implement the AGRA bond concept. The timing is almost perfect. The cost to the public treasury would be extremely small. The benefit to the farming community would be immense. We know that a dollar invested in the agricultural industry generates $7 to $10 in terms of the general economy.
Fifth, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has proposed a market risk insurance plan. This plan involves a three-way participation between the two levels of government and the producers. This plan has been ignored.
Sixth, the Christian Farmers Federation has carefully studied this financial crisis and has recommended a selected interest rate subsidy of over 12 per cent on short-term and medium-term loans. I am certain that the members of that federation will find little comfort, if any, in the $5 million subsidy contained in the recent budget.
Seventh, what has happened to the government's election promise to update the V-day values? This promise has been completely forgotten. The government has yet to match our offer to double the exemption, to say nothing of a once in a lifetime exemption from this inflationary tax. The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) today indicated there were only a couple of provisions left of which farmers could take advantage to cushion to a small degree the effects of the capital gains tax. One of those provisions has been removed; the other one has been seriously cut.
Eighth, no measures were offered for further rebates on fuels used for food production. Given the increase in cost of this source of energy in the next few years, a total exemption of tax would be appropriate and would benefit all segments of the AGRA food industry, from the producers to the consumers. The hon. member for Medicine Hat indicated, because of the serious state of the beef industry, the red meat industry today, that it is simply imperative for the government to move on to a rational and national stabilization plan. If the beef industry is to survive the crisis it faces today, I believe an emergency payment is essential.
We are losing farmers day by day. The farmers we are losing are among our better farmers. I recall asking a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on the first day
November 19, 1981

of this session. The minister's answer received a lot of press coverage. He was firm in asserting that he would take on the banks. In fact, he said, "I want to see the banks bleed a little". The blood is still flowing out there today. I want to remind the Minister of Finance, although he is not present in the House, that the blood we see flowing out there is not from the bankers but rather from the farmers themselves.
We need these good young farmers now in the industry. We will need them more in the future. As we know this industry, it may not even survive if those conditions last three to five years longer. That is extremely bad news for the Canadian farmers, the consumers, the businessmen, labour and the country as a whole.
This government, and the hon. members opposite, are completely and entirely to blame.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. Before I begin my remarks, I want to say how pleased I am that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has introduced this resolution.
I believe it is important that Members of Parliament from time to time debate subject matters that are of great concern to Canadians, whether it is in the form of legislation or a motion debated on an opposition day. I also want to point out that the party to my right, the pink rump as I call it, have no monopoly whatsoever on compassion.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) quoted a lot and indulged in a lot of phraseology. What could be more despicable than this rich kid, more condescending than this moralizing professor-I do not know what the hon. member is a professor of-trying to tell the Canadian people what to do? I suggest that his intention is to confuse and to cause more hardship. That is the only way the hon. member gets elected. I would like to state clearly for the record-and I have to agree with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise)- that the hon. member and the NDP party are not the only ones to have some degree of compassion.
The budget that was introduced to the House on November 12, contained three main thrusts that somehow the opposition members, particularly the New Democratic Party, would like to distort. They did not check the facts, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of facts that ought to be placed before Parliament so that the Canadian people may know exactly what is taking place.
There are three points in the budget that I wish to deal with: restraint, renewal and equity. Restraint is aimed at reducing the deficit, which in part has an effect on inflation as well as on interest rates and on employment. Equity is dealt with in the measures which were tabled, such as the taxable loopholes which were closed. And, of course, assistance has been given to small-business men, farmers and home owners. I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that assistance for small-business men will create jobs and ensure jobs for the future.
Job Creation
In his opening remarks the hon. member said that the policy of the government will lead to the dislocation of workers. What could be more untrue or inaccurate? That statement is not factual. We all know the position of his party on nuclear energy, and I should like to cite two examples in that area. There is a heavy water plant in my riding. If the government's aim were the dislocation of workers, perhaps it would have closed that plant. But the plant has not been closed; it continues to get subsidies and has provided 400 or 450 jobs.
The other inaccurate statement concerned another corporation in my area, namely, the Cape Breton Development Corporation. If the government wanted to dislocate workers, it would have shifted to British Columbia the 4,000 coalminers employed there. That is what the NDP has been talking about. The corporation continues to get subsidies, however, although it is a losing proposition. But it has created 4,500 jobs. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and those facts play on the nerves of hon. members opposite.
There are a number of other points which I wish to deal with later but I know I speak for my colleagues when I say we have the deepest sympathy for Canadians facing uncertain employment, especially as the Christmas season draws near. Sympathy is never enough for people in trouble. The government has always relied upon action rather than hollow words to help those in need.
Our compassion for workers is shown in the most generous and the best unemployment insurance package in the world. That is not to suggest that it is perfect. The program needs revisions, and those will come about because I have confidence in the ability and integrity of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Hon. members opposite often create confusion when they speak of lay-offs because they do not differentiate between temporary lay-offs and long term or even permanent lay-offs. It is certainly regrettable, but nevertheless it is a fact of life, that workers will have to be unemployed during the time a plant re-tools, for example, or experiences a disruption in the flow of material. Unemployment insurance can provide stability to the labour market in such times through its maintenance income mechanism.
The UI program was designed to give those who had been laid off temporary financial assistance to tide them over until they become re-employed. Unemployment insurance helps people pay their bills between jobs. Workers pay premiums to insure themselves against the unexpected loss of jobs. UI gives financial protection against this loss.
As hon. members know, at the present time there is a task force whose report has been made public. It is a working document which contains some recommendations with which I personally do not agree, but nevertheless I hope that with the co-operation of all Members of Parliament, when the package is introduced some time in the new year, those injustices will be corrected.

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
There are many examples of the way in which the Department of Manpower and Immigration has designed programs to help unemployed workers. I should like to describe two of them. The firm making Blue Bell jeans had two locations, one in Renfrew and one in Carleton Place, Ontario. When these two factories closed down, it meant that over 100 people were without jobs. UI agents from the Canada Employment Centre went to work immediately. Using standard departmental procedures they interviewed all the employees who were affected by the lay-offs. I can see that hon. members in the New Democratic Party do not care about the unemployed because they laugh and chuckle.
These interviews accomplished several things. The first concern of most people is how they are going to pay the rent next month. At the work site, UI agents complete the initial paper work for the UI claims so that the workers can get financial help as quickly as possible and get on with the business of finding other jobs.
Finding jobs for the workers is the other part of these interviews, Mr. Speaker. Some workers are not willing to move. It must be determined what work experience and qualifications they have and whether training could help. The answers to such questions allow employment counsellors to help those who have been laid off to find jobs. The department and this government do more than merely give someone a few dollars, saying "good luck". The government takes seriously its responsibility to help them maintain their productive place in society. Providing UI does this temporarily and helping them to secure a new job does it permanently.
A more dramatic example occurred in Stephenville, Newfoundland, when the liner board company was in difficulty in 1977 and had to be baled out. The loss of the American air force base meant a loss of business, and for the community it also meant that over 500 people were thrown out of work. Again, the Canada Employment Centre moved in using standard procedures, every employee affected was interviewed to see if he or she qualified for unemployment insurance and employment programs such as mobility and training aid. This information was used to blitz the various employment centres and large employers. As a result, most people found new work, and the community survived.
A footnote to this shows that the community now has an opportunity to prosper. Abitibi-Price has bought the old liner board company and is opening a paper mill. Undoubtedly, lay-offs are inevitable and hon. members across the floor must face that reality as we do.
The record of this government shows its use of complex unemployment insurance and employment programs to help individuals with the social impact of lay-offs.
Another response to temporary lay-offs is special job-creation measures. For a moment I should like to refer to a number of decisions made by the government as they relate to job creation. Direct decisions taken by cabinet will mean jobs and prosperity for many communities throughout Canada. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did not refer to those decisions, however. He wishes to put them aside because he is
the communicator of gloom and doom. Michelin Tire in Nova Scotia was provided with money by the Government of Canada. At the completion of this program it will have created some 1,850 jobs, and that is a fact, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Michelin will employ 5,200 people in Nova Scotia, thus becoming the largest manufacturing employer in Atlantic Canada. Production at this plant is scheduled to begin in July, 1982.
Another decision taken by the Government of Canada relates to the Sydney Steel Corporation. It is not in my riding but it is adjacent to it. A sizeable sum of money, $96.2 million was provided to the Sydney Steel Corporation for modernization. That creates jobs and despite what the NDP might allude to, despite all their rhetoric, that is a fact, and they should acknowledge it. But the NDP is the communicator of gloom and doom.
There are other decisions that I wish to refer to very briefly because I think that it is important that all members of Parliament, not just the pink rump on that side, be made aware of them.
The Industry and Labour Adjustment Program, a very good program, in the amount of $350 million. It involves four communities which are suffering from high unemployment and are receiving special assistance directly from the Government of Canada. Four departments of the Government of Canada are involved: DREE, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Employment and Immigration and Finance. I think that this information should be made known to Members of Parliament, it should be tabled, and all Members of Parliament should acknowledge that fact.
Of course, the Strait of Canso development is another initiative in the province of Nova Scotia. There are a couple of hundred across the country, but I am just referring to the ones for the province of Nova Scotia. The government provided an additional $3.2 million for the Canada-Nova Scotia subsidiary agreement for the Strait of Canso area development. That too will create jobs.


An hon. Member:: Is private enterprise producing any jobs?


David Charles Dingwall: Of course, we all know where the NDP sit concerning nuclear energy, but they do not go down and tell the workers of the heavy water plant what they think. The NDP will not communicate that. However, in February, 1981, a decision was made to transfer the title of the Government of Canada's $300 million general uranium stockpile to Eldorado Nuclear Limited. The committee agreed in January, 1981, to seek parliamentary approval to lighten the debt load of Atomic Energy of Canada by $822.7 million. That creates jobs, and has created 450 in one location, in my own constituency. That is very important. That is another fact.
November 19, 1981

Of course, nothing is mentioned by the New Democratic Party concerning the money which was provided under the Nova Scotia Ocean Industries Agreement. In July of 1981, a five-year subsidy agreement to spur the ocean industry in Nova Scotia was announced. A federal contribution of $23 million will go, in part, toward the creation of a federal government ocean industry office in Nova Scotia to assist those industries which are closely tied to the ocean so that jobs will be created and prosperity brought to those areas of Atlantic Canada.
There are numerous other examples. I briefly referred to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. That, too, received additional moneys from the Government of Canada to create jobs. I hope we will continue to do that in the future. I must underline another fact not accepted and then swept under the rug by the NDP because they want to communicate to the Canadian people doom and gloom and predictions that everything will fall.
It should be kept in mind that an extremely high percentage of lay-offs are temporary. Thus we must look beyond the bald figures to assess, the real seriousness of the problem. Superficial comments on lay-offs are no better than the scare tactics which serve no purpose other than to embarrass the government. In fact, this government has long recognized that so-called permanent lay-offs can be prevented through careful planning. For a number of years, the government has been quietly working behind the scenes with management and labour in searching out ways to prevent lay-offs from taking place because of technological or economic changes.
Hon. members should underline the name of the program, manpower consultative services, because it is a most effective way to stabilize the labour market. I mention this program because I do not believe it has been receiving all that much fanfare. Long before the bleak reality of lay-offs occur, this service moves in, bringing management and labour together through a special committee which examines the situation in detail. Experts are made available to the committee and the federal government picks up the tab for 50 per cent of the financial outlays.
Here are two examples of how this approach has prevented lay-offs. Continental Kitchens of Concord, Ontario, was forced into receivership and 50 workers are in imminent danger of losing their jobs. This service brought in outside experts who were able to show that the long-range prospects of the firm were bright. Thus today that firm is no longer in receivership and not one person lost his or her job. A similar situation existed for the Toronto manufacturing firm of Shiffer-Hill-man, and this time some 130 jobs were saved thanks to this particular service.
Let it not be said by opposition members, and particularly by that group down there, that the government is just sitting back. We know where those hon. members sit on a variety of issues-


An hon. Member:: The NDP.
Job Creation


David Charles Dingwall: -whether it be the Constitution, nuclear energy or whatever. Those hon. members are talking out of both sides of their mouths. It should be noted that the Government of Canada is not just sitting back. We are taking bold initiatives. Some of them are new and some are initiatives which we have revamped from previous years. Nevertheless, we are attempting to address this particular issue.
A great deal can be accomplished, I believe, merely by providing a framework to enable the private sector to absorb laid-off workers. Naturally, the government is also willing and eager to help place the workers in immediate employment. In recent years, great strides have been made in improving the job-matching performance of the government. Through the use of regional and national computer systems, job matching can be done in a matter of minutes. As I understand it, an unemployed welder in Moncton, for example, can visit the Canada Employment Centre there and request a national job search. Within minutes, he should have a number from which to choose and can even make his own job interview and arrangements on the spot. For laid-off workers willing to relocate, the government's generous mobility assistance is vital in getting them re-established as soon as possible. I believe there are several types of mobility assistance available, from helping to defray the costs of trips to look for new jobs to generous relocation allowances.
Whenever efforts to find jobs locally fail and mobility is not a viable alternative, the government can help laid-off workers, as I said before, through its massive expenditures in training which amount, I believe, to approximately $750 million annually. Nevertheless, many of those workers probably need to upgrade their skills to secure more permanent jobs. As I said, the government offers very generous financial aid to firms in the private sector which take on unemployed workers for on-the-job training. I am sure that many hon. members will agree with me that this is the most effective way to get the unemployed working again.
Before I conclude my remarks, I wish to reiterate that when subject matters of job creation and unemployment are raised in the House, I, as one Member of Parliament, will listen very carefully to what hon. members opposite have to say about the causes of unemployment and what they have to say in terms of job creation. However, I will not stand in my place and listen to hon. members opposite, particularly those from that group down there, quote facts which are inaccurate. I sincerely believe that it adds nothing to the process because we are involved here in a very serious process, one of trying to assist the unemployed, to create jobs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired. With the permission of the House, the hon. member may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Be nice!

November 19, 1981
Job Creation


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you very much. Hon. members are requesting that I be nice. I am always nice. However, I want to assure the House that it is my intention and desire to listen to their concerns and to listen to what they want to suggest on how we can improve upon our programs. However, again, I will not sit here and listen to their facts which are totally inaccurate. I believe that all hon. members should approach this debate very seriously. When one approaches this debate on the unemployed and job creation, one must put all the facts on the table, both the good and the bad. I hope that in the ensuing months, all of us on all sides of this House will hear some good music in the sense that job creation will be heightened and that the unemployment rate will be substantially reduced. I think that is the wish of us all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is just prior to six o'clock. I would recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller); however, it being six o'clock, I will leave the Chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House recessed for the dinner hour, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) was to be given the floor.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this opposition day motion. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) gave the New Democratic Party a compliment. He also complimented those people in Canada who have been protesting government policies over a year and a half. On this side of the House we were beginning to feel that our arguments on the economy and interest rates were not being listened to. Obviously from the kind of reaction we had from the hon. member and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) some impact has been felt by the government because it has become fairly sensitive to what it feels is becoming known in the land as an uncaring government. We have heard a lot about caring from the members of the government side today. Government members profess to be as caring as the New Democratic Party. This is quite hard to believe. If that is what the government members wish to believe, that is fine.
Perhaps the message from those people who come from Mississauga and Toronto about the housing crisis, did get through to the government, although that did not appear to be the case at the time. Perhaps the message from those people who came to protest the curtailment of VIA Rail, got through to this government. Perhaps the telegrams had some impact. Perhaps the message which the native people brought to
Parliament Hill this afternoon got through to this government. I would like to ask those members on the Liberal side who are caring whether they are caring enough to carry a message to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). I am concerned about this afternoon's demonstration by our native people in front of the Parliament buildings. As a Member of Parliament, I thought it quite disgraceful that our native people were greeted in front of the Parliament of Canada by a line of RCMP officers. If we are sensitive to the feelings of Canadians, whether they are native Canadians, Canadian women or the population as a whole, we should greet the Canadian public in front of our Parliament buildings without having a line of RCMP officers there, especially when the demonstration is peaceful or just a demonstration for recognition as Canadians. I hope the members who are here will take that message to their colleagues who are not. What happened this afternoon was a disgraceful exhibition.
I am sure that the people in my constituency are as amazed as I am each time we have an election, because the Liberal Party seems to confound the public into believing that everything is new and that it has no responsibility for what happened in Canada previously. Today we have heard all about wonderful Liberal programs the government is introducing to create jobs and to protect the income of Canadians. We hear about an industrial strategy. But this government has been in power since 1963, with the exception of nine short months. I am sure those months seemed very short to the Tory party, but they were very long months for many Canadians. The government on the other side of the House has not lived up to the campaign promises which it has made to the Canadian public for years. I hope that Canadians in Ontario and in Quebec in particular will wake up to the fact that campaign promises we hear from this government are really just campaign promises.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond condemned the New Democratic Party for being purveyors of doom and gloom. It is not the New Democratic Party and it is not the Tory party who are the purveyors of doom and gloom, it is the economic conditions of this country. The Canadian public know what the Canadian economy is all about. A recent Gallup poll showed that 65 per cent of Canadians surveyed expect our economy to get worse this winter. In British Columbia, 72 per cent of those polled have lost confidence in the Canadian economy and in our federal government. In Atlantic Canada 77 per cent of those polled feel that unemployment and economic conditions will get worse instead of better. The poll was taken before the introduction of the budget.
It would be interesting to find out now what the attitude of the people living in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere in Canada is after having a budget presented which does nothing to put people back to work. This budget is the most dismal budget ever delivered by a minister of finance for years and years, especially in a period when Canadians are facing crisis situations in home ownership, business, fishing and farming. It is no wonder that the people in Atlantic Canada are pessimistic about the government's willingness to improve the situation.
November 19, 1981

The disastrous unemployment statistics published earlier this year show 989,000 people unemployed and probably another half a million so-called hidden unemployed, at least hidden from the minds of this uncaring Liberal government.
In Nova Scotia the figures indicate that 11 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. That figure is now probably closer to 14 per cent. In Prince Edward Island there are over 12 per cent unemployed, and in New Brunswick well over 13 per cent. In Newfoundland, according to official statistics, at least 15.2 per cent of the work force are unemployed. In all, over 300,000 people are unemployed in the four Atlantic provinces. That is a disgraceful situation in a country with the wealth and human resources we have.
As we follow this monetarist economic policy which is laid down for us by the United States, we are not only getting higher unemployment, we are also experiencing higher inflation, instead of the lower inflation promised by this policy of high interest rates. Inflation is not being reduced. This is evidenced by the massive increase in the cost of living in Atlantic Canada. In Prince Edward Island the consumer price index increased by 13.4 per cent between October, 1980, and October, 1981. In the same period, inflation went up 8 per cent in St. John's, Newfoundland, 12.1 per cent in Saint John, New Brunswick, and 11.4 per cent in Halifax. This compares with a national average of 9.1 per cent.
There seems to be no plan for stimulating the industry or investment in Atlantic Canada even though the major employer, particularly in Newfoundland, has seen a drastic reduction in investment in the fishing industry, from $91 million in 1979 to $53.4 million this year. While we do not like to dwell on the negative, I think it is worth while once again to remind the government, which has some ability to change economic conditions in this country, that it has some responsibility to Atlantic Canada as well as to the rest of the nation.


An hon. Member:: This government has no ability.


Edward Allan Miller: It lacks ability but we hope it will develop some ability soon.
An estimated one-half of the 6,000 students graduating from Nova Scotia universities each year have to go elsewhere for employment, not because they want to leave the Atlantic provinces but because they must. They have been doing that for generations.
The federal government recently reduced the number of civil servants in Prince Edward Island by 138. This again is a blow to that economy caused by this budget. VIA Rail cutbacks will result in the loss of 280 jobs in Atlantic Canada, and will create more difficulty for employees and passengers.
Consolidated Rambler Mines is planning to shut down its copper mine at Baie Verte, Newfoundland, resulting in some 900 workers being laid off. This is a direct result of the high interest rate policy followed by the federal government and, I
Job Creation
might say, followed by the Reagan government in the United States.
The unemployment picture in Atlantic Canada is disgraceful, and we have a government which seems unable to do anything to improve a situation that has been continuing for many years. While there are more statistics that could be quoted, I think, as my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) indicated earlier in the day, we really do not often put a face on the picture of unemployment. Today the NDP caucus met with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress. Its representatives will be here on the weekend to add, hopefully, a very loud and strong voice to the protest of government economic policy as well as the government's interest rate policy. Regardless of the number of people who show up for the demonstration in front of Parliament on Saturday, you can be sure that tens of thousands of other people wish they could be in Ottawa to pass a message on to the government but who cannot afford to travel being on unemployment insurance or on human resources welfare.
Let me recount some of the stories we heard from members of the delegation who met with us today. A member from the Newfoundland Federation of Labour indicated that from 37 per cent to 40 per cent of the people belonging to that federation are unemployed. We were told that two mines were to be closed down, throwing many more people out of work. Probably compounding the problem extensively is the fact that the pension plan, to which the employees of one of those mines had contributed $1.5 million, was going to be lost to those members and there is no money with which to pay the pensions.
We were told that another mine was to be closed down because the company could make more money by putting its capital in the bank. That company was prepared to do that even though it meant throwing people out of work and on unemployment insurance. In this way the company can make more profit through bank interest, instead of putting the capital to work.
The fishing industry this year in Newfoundland was the worst it has ever been because of a combination of poor inshore and offshore fisheries stocks and federal government mismanagement. If Fonse Faour were part of the NDP now we would probably have very good representation from Newfoundland. That industry, which is the backbone of the Newfoundland economy, experienced a disastrous year, and the answer of the government to that loss of revenue was a $1.5 million make-work project so that people would have enough weeks of work to be eligible for unemployment insurance. That was inadequate but the best this government could do.


An hon. Member:: A band-aid.


Edward Allan Miller: As my colleague points out, it was band-aid treatment for the economy.
Not only are the fishing and mining industries in trouble, the forestry industry in this country is facing difficulties. Our forest industry is the main exporter of this nation and the main revenue producer for provincial and federal governments.

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
Because of high interest rates woodworkers right across the country are unemployed. In my own riding of Nanaimo-Alber-ni there is a town which has 6,000 woodworkers with 1,500 of them now unemployed. The town itself is hurting, the businessmen are losing money and home owners are losing their houses because of this government's high interest rate policy.
A young fellow from Nova Scotia who came with the CLC to meet with us made representations to our caucus this morning. He put a human face to this picture of high interest rates and unemployment. His story could be applied to all kinds of woodworkers across this nation. There are some 11,300 unemployed in British Columbia. Some 47 per cent of the B.C. plywood industry is inactive because of the slowdown in home construction. About 85 per cent of the plywood manufactured in this nation goes to the construction of Canadian homes. We have unemployed plywood workers and at the same time we have people looking for homes and apartments who cannot afford them and we have many families losing their homes. Bob from Nova Scotia, who has five children, has to pay 60 per cent of his income toward his mortgage because of the 22 per cent interest rate. He represents 14,000 home owners in Atlantic Canada, 30 per cent to 40 per cent of whom are facing mortgage renewals in the next three months with interest rates fluctuating.
We in the NDP have some suggestions for this government. We have been hearing for years and years from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) about an industrial strategy. We want to know why we cannot employ more people in Atlantic Canada in the shipbuilding industry and establish a merchant marine. We have too many people in Atlantic Canada trying to make a living with a limited resource. The fishing industry just cannot support the number of people who are presently trying to make a living from fisheries. These people have no other employment opportunities. We want to know why this government does not move toward an industrial strategy which would enable the manufacture of more goods in Canada. We want to know why we in the maritimes cannot have our own shipbuilding industry.
Through Bill C-48 we are not going to produce the jobs and equipment necessary for offshore and northern development of oil and gas. We should be doing this and we should be insisting that the spin-off jobs go to Atlantic Canada, central and western Canada to produce income and a strong social fabric so that families can afford to purchase homes and feed their children as well as give them access to community facilities, thus encouraging families to remain together.
There is a dilemma facing families in Canada in that both parents have to work and often their children are placed in inadequate day care facilities. In some of the worst cases, families of the unemployed have to split up to enable the wife and children to apply for welfare because they can get more from welfare than if they were living together as a family. I have had that very example in Ottawa from the CLC.
When we talk about caring, we talk about caring for people in this country. This government has made many objections to our accusations that it is not a caring government. Our party is not the one who is sending this message to the government. It is our constituents who are sending it through us.
It is time that the government woke up to the real facts of life in this great nation which could be greater without a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, today's motion claims that this government has rejected its commitments to stimulate long-term job creation through a comprehensive approach to economic policy planning. I believe that the facts are precisely the opposite to what these hon. members from the New Democratic Party would have this House and the Canadian public believe.
In the Speech from the Throne delivered on April 14, 1980, the government set out in clear and definite terms the nature of our industrial policy commitment. It said that the government would "promote a national development policy that would provide jobs, stimulate growth, build on regional strength and increase Canadian ownership and control of the economy".
With the budget last week, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) published a paper entitled, "Economic Development for the 1980s" which brings together in a single document the policies and priorities of the Government of Canada for national economic development. The opposition members would have the public believe that what this document says about the role of the federal government in economic development falls short of the commitment which we have made in industrial policy. I think they are very wrong in this idea. I believe the principles and priorities set out in that document reflect a consistent adherence to the commitments on industrial and economic development policy which the government made at the beginning of its mandate and which have since guided its extensive work on industrial development policy.
The role we have set for the national government in facilitating economic growth and industrial renewal is a vigorous one. The government is and will remain an active player in the industrial development of this country.
The government believes that in the future, as in the past, private sector responses to market signals must map the essential direction of economic growth where markets function effectively.
Nevertheless, there is, in our view, a continuing need for government action to support private entrepreneurial activity, to promote the maximum competitive industrial performance and bring about a fair sharing of the benefits of growth in every region of Canada.
As the economic development document states:
The Government of Canada must assume a leadership role in the field of economic development. Harnessing the resources of the economy is a national enterprise which includes but extends beyond the interests of particular regions
November 19, 1981

or sectors. The policies and programs of the national government represent major instruments for managing and exploiting the development opportunities and ensuring that the benefits are shared fairly.
That is an important extract from the economic development document. These are not empty words, as is demonstrated in the many actions we have taken over the past 20 months.
There is the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program with more than $300 million for this year and the next two years. There is the funding of $250 million over the next five years for the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. Both these programs are in place to create, over the coming months, long term jobs in areas and industries that are presently undergoing substantial restructuring.
I can also point out other examples, such as the agreement made pursuant to discussions with the Ford Motor Company to provide 1,000 jobs in the Oakville assembly plant of that company and to ensure that new front wheel Ford cars-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the lay-offs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -will be built in Canada. There is the duty remission program for front-end loaders in Canada implemented for the purpose of creating 800 direct and 400 indirect long-term jobs.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about the lay-offs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: There is the direct action taken to restructure and Canadianize White Farm in Brantford to restore hundreds of jobs to that company. There is the $54 million in financial support extended to Michelin Tire to build a third tire plant in Nova Scotia, which will provide approximately 1,836 longterm jobs.


An hon. Member:: What about Massey-Ferguson?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: And there are the federal government's other basic commitments on industrial policy which are also brought forward in the central themes of the economic development strategy document, as they have been in the major economic policy initiatives-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why don't you tell us about the lay-offs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -taken since this government took office. For example, Canada's rich resource base-


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. minister would accept a question now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. minister accept a question from the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)?


M. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, time is strictly limited in this debate, so if there is time after I conclude my remarks I would be delighted to accept questions.


An hon. Member:: You are scared.
Job Creation


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, Canada's rich resource base, as said in the April 14 throne speech, is "a basic building block" for a great deal of our future industrial development.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that speech for you?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The economic development paper brings this commitment forward by highlighting a number of new government measures to enhance industrial activity in relation to our natural resources, such as hydrocarbons, agriculture, mining and forestry. But, perhaps even more important, these initiatives follow the introduction of the comprehensive National Energy Program which embarked the country on a great new national effort to realize the full potential for the development of our oil and gas resources and to ensure fair sharing of the benefits to Canadians across the country from that development.
Most recently, we have established in my department the office of regional and industrial benefits, and I stated, in announcing that program last August, the objectives and guidelines of the federal government for industrial benefits from the megaprojects.
All this was to promote competitive access by Canadian businesses and workers to oil and gas development on the Canada lands as well as major resource and other developments elsewhere in our country.


An hon. Member:: It is not worth it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The motion before this House accuses the government of having industrial policies which fail to create long-term jobs.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: True, true.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: But inherent in the major project activities anticipated over the next 20 years are tens of thousands-


An hon. Member:: How about today?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -of long-term jobs in construction, machinery handling, drilling as well as high technology areas. Indeed, the major projects task force predicted that between now and the year 2,000, major projects would generate about 20,000 new jobs in the high technology area.


An hon. Member:: We have a million unemployed now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The industrial benefits measures we have announced are designed to ensure that these job opportunities, as well as the other potential industrial benefits to Canada for major project activities, are realized for companies in Canada and for Canadian workers.
We are also strengthening Canada's research and development capacity through such actions as those taken in recent months, for example, to support the development by Pratt & Whitney of the PT-7 aircraft engine and by de Havilland of the Dash-8 commuter airplane. Although these companies have, in recent weeks, experienced lay-offs as a result of a

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
severe downturn in the foreign markets that account for 80 per cent of the sales of products, the federal support for development of the new product lines, the Dash-8 and PT-7, is expected to create approximately 4,000 new and long-term jobs by 1983.
Federal government funding has also made possible the establishment of microelectronics centres of technology at six Canadian universities. We are taking steps, for example, to ensure for the various regions of Canada the benefit of the CF-18 fighter aircraft contract. There is the creation, by way of example, of the General Aluminium Forgings plant in Winnipeg through $3.1 million of federal government support. Another example is the hundreds of long-term jobs expected to flow from the signing of our memorandum of understanding with Bayly Engineering respecting that company's future activities in Canada.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is not sticking to the motion put by the New Democratic Party. I wonder if he would mention the lay-offs at Massey-Ferguson and in the auto industry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has the floor. The hon. member has not made a point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there would be no Massey-Ferguson today, no people working there and no jobs for laid-off workers to come back to had we on this side of the House not done what we did to ensure the restructuring and continuance of the company. I am certainly sticking to the motion. I am responding to the unjustified charge that our policies are not working to create long-term jobs.
One of our basic election commitments on industrial policy as stated in the economic development document is to work in the area of research and development. That document stated that exclusive of tax expenditures, the government is spending some $1.5 billion on research and development this year. The document also announced the establishment of a new industrial opportunities program to improve and make more effective the government's support of industrial innovation and development. It commits the government to put in place new measures to support high risk innovative activity by Canadian entrepreneurs; this in addition to the wide range of existing tax related and funded programs that support this highly productive and vitally important part of economic activity in Canada.
Another central element of our approach to industrial policy, to which we committed ourselves during the last federal election campaign, is to encourage independent Canadian-owned enterprise. Here several important steps have already been taken to support small and medium-sized businesses which are largely Canadian owned.
Last year my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe), sponsored amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act and the legislation governing the Federal Business Development Bank to expand
significantly the federal programs operated under these laws aimed at assisting Canadian small business. Following this government's extension of the Small Business Development Bond program, it is estimated that by the end of this year at least $2 billion in loans will have been committed to small business under this program. I was pleased recently to be able to announce the establishment of the first company, with several others about to follow, under the federal government's credit reinsurance program, and this program has the potential to make up to $1 billion of long-term loan funds available to small and medium-sized businesses.
Last week's budget itself and the economic development strategy document build vigorously on the already very significant measures which the government has introduced since taking office to encourage independent small and mediumsized businesses. In the budget, the government has responded to representations we had received from the small business community by raising significantly the limits of small business eligibility for the special tax rate afforded to small businesses and by eliminating the corporate surtax for small businesses.
The budget also extended the reach of the Small Business Development Bond program to include unincorporated businesses. These tax measures are complemented by the commitments made in the industrial development document to enhance, as I said earlier, venture capital assistance for small and medium-sized Canadian businesses as well as to broaden the role of the Federal Business Development Bank to strengthen its capacity to support small business in this country.


Ian Deans: How many unemployed are there?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Finally, there was the commitment to expand Canadian control of the economy while increasing the benefits for Canadians from the foreign investment already here, a commitment about which there has been a lot of talk in the last six days in terms of an alleged back-off by the government. I want to say that that allegation, like so many others we have heard from hon. members opposite in the past week, is not accurate. In the first place, it was only a year ago that this government put in place the specific mechanisms that will permit us to achieve 50 per cent ownership within ten years by Canadians of the vital oil and gas industry. In the short time since then the progress on Canadianizing oil and gas, a sector which accounts for approximately 5 per cent of the entire gross national product of Canada, has been such that in 12 months the percentage of revenues from the oil and gas producing sector going to Canadian-controlled companies has climbed from 28 per cent to 34 per cent, again in only one year.
In the economic development document published with the budget the government made a strong endorsation of the operations of the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the principle underlying it that "foreign investment must be of significant benefit to Canada." While it says two relatively limited new actions respecting foreign investment policy will not be introduced for the time being, the document does announce the government's intention to implement a new
November 19, 1981

process of dialogue with large foreign and Canadian-controlled corporations operating in Canada. This process will aim to ensure that, in the words of the document:
Foreign-controlled corporations and their Canadian counterparts alike contribute fully to the development of an innovative and internationally competitive industrial structure, pursuing Canadian objectives in areas such as research and development and international marketing with equal vigour.
This initiative will be an important addition to the many policy instruments already in place to improve the over-all performance of the Canadian economy and, in particular, its capacity to create permanent jobs in every one of Canada's regions.
In what I have said about the government's major and diverse activities in creating jobs, our record of effort in meeting specific commitments on national economic development policy and our continuing adherence to the principles and priorities of government activism in support of economic growth across the country there are, I believe, convincing answers to the empty motion of the New Democratic Party. Of course, no one could fail to recognize that at the present time the economy in Canada, as in the rest of the world, is experiencing particular difficulties-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a matter of good order I wonder if the minister would indicate whether he is informed by Senator Olson, before important economic decisions are made, or does he simply hear of the decisions after they are made?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will tell us the inside story of the Bank of Western Canada, perhaps some day I will tell him about how we on this side of the House work together in the interests of the Canadian people, the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.


Ian Deans: I would like to hear both those stories.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I was saying, no one can fail to recognize that at the present time the economy in Canada, as in the rest of the world, is experiencing particular difficulties, the consequences of which are being felt to a greater or lesser degree by virtually every Canadian. We as the national government have to address these difficulties, particularly when for certain groups in the population they are creating genuine hardship. We are addressing them through special assistance measures-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As Your Honour will have noted, I have been asked to reveal the inside story of the Bank of Western Canada. I am very willing to do that, but can we hear the minister tell us about Senator Olson?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a point of order. The hon. member has put a question to the minister, and the minister has replied.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying must hurt. Hon. members opposite have no response to what I am saying;
Job Creation
otherwise they would not be trying to interrupt me with frivolous and spurious points of order. What I have said demonstrates conclusively that I have the facts and they have nothing but empty drivel.
We are addressing these hardships through special assistance measures like those relating to home owners, farmers and small business announced in the budget but also through an approach to economic policy planning and strategy that ensures that the response of the government to short-term economic challenges is consistent with and makes progress by capturing the enormous long-term opportunities that are emerging in the Canadian economy. The budget does this through its emphasis on restoring stability to prices and interest rates, and our economic development strategy does this through its variety and comprehensiveness. It does this through its attention to regional as well as national economic development requirements and through its emphasis on building on the country's many strengths in meeting the challenges and opportunities of the 1980s.
Far from being a retreat from the commitments this government made during the campaign, the economic development document in particular moves them substantially, and a long way forward. It sets them out in a framework that in itself forms the basis for new policy initiatives, the details of which will be announced in coming weeks and months, initiatives aimed at ensuring industrial revitalization, long-term job creation and the full realization of the country's enormous economic potential.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) was earlier seeking to ask a question. The minister still has two minutes remaining.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the minister gave a lot of figures about how well the government has treated the Ford Motor Company, Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler. Can he assure us that Co-op Implements of Winnipeg will be receiving the $14 million it requires to survive?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and I have been actively working on a program aimed at responding to the difficulties and opportunities of Co-op Implements. The company would not be there now without the assistance already extended by the federal government.
We are working to see what practical program we can put forward to add to what we have already done to help ensure the continuation of this company.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, from time to time in the history of this nation serious problems have arisen that have captured the attention of the Canadian public for various time periods. National defence, largely ignored today, has occupied the centre stage, but only in times of international strife. For months this Parliament has floundered on the constitutional debate. Let us hope that parliamentary

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
action will not create more problems than it resolves with the proposal for constitutional change.
The problem that has plagued Canada and Canadians for almost all of our history is unemployment. In fact, only in the war and post-war years has this nation enjoyed relatively full employment. What do we mean by full employment? I want to put on the record of the House the view that was expressed by the parliamentary task force in its report entitled "Work for Tomorrow". It dealt with full employment in that concept, asking if Canada would commit itself to a goal of full employment.
That parliamentary task force, which consisted of members of the House of Commons from both the government and the opposition side, reminded Canadians in its report that in 1945 in a white paper on unemployment, this statement was made:
The government has stated unequivocally its adoption of a high and stable level of employment and income, and thereby higher standards of living, as a major aim of government policy.
In 1945 the Liberal government said that its major aim was the achievement of full employment. In the time that has transpired since, we are still faced in this country with massive and chronic unemployment. It is very difficult to take the government and its ministers seriously when they indicate in the House and elsewhere that they are committed to programs to establish full employment in Canada. That same task force on employment in Canada said in its report:
It is ironic that 15 years after the creation of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and despite some of its successful programs, the manpower problems it was created to solve still exist. There are still shortages of skilled manpower, and the level of unemployment is now much higher than it was in the mid-sixties.
That is what a parliamentary task force said of the efforts of the then minister of manpower and immigration and his department to resolve unemployment in Canada. This criticism is valuable because it comes from friends of the government as well as opponents. We are still left with the problem, in spite of the shallow words of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), of massive unemployment in this country.
This very day representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress are meeting in Ottawa. They have gathered together some 20 persons who are victims of the high interest rate policy of the government which, in turn, is contributing to unemployment in this country. Those persons are faced with foreclosure actions on their homes. After years of spending on mortgage and interest payments, they are faced with the loss of their homes. It is in that context and at that point in our history that we have to consider some of these very serious economic problems, of which the ultimate one for a Canadian is unemployment.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) referred to the Speech from the Throne which was delivered in the House on April 14, 1980. He indicated what were the government's policies to cure the economic ills of this country. He did it in very definite terms. What the minister forgot to
mention was that in that same Speech from the Throne delivered on April 14, 1980, there was this promise:
In particular, my government recognizes the need to protect those Canadians most affected by unacceptably high interest rates. My government will act to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided.
That is the hollow promise made in the Speech from the Throne. That is the promise the members of the Canadian Labour Congress and those home owners in danger of losing their homes want the government to face almost two years later. There is yet no substantial assistance for home owners other than the approximately 12,500 across Canada who meet the very strict requirement of the government test for eligibility.


An hon. Member:: It is consistent.


Howard Edward Crosby: It is not consistent with that promise. In the same way, the utterances of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with respect to the economic proposals and programs of the government are as hollow as were the promises of assistance to home owners.
Any parliamentary consideration of job-creation measures must be given full and careful attention by all hon. members. Yet job-creation measures that are not an integrated part of an over-all industrial strategy that has full employment as its aim and purpose will be almost meaningless and, in fact, will be just another form of social welfare measure.
Let me make it clear that the current urgent state of the nation's economy justifies social welfare measures for unemployed Canadians. I support make-work programs for that very reason. What we must, however, consider and develop is an industrial plan and strategy that will result in the permanent employment of our labour force.
I want to review in some detail the whole matter of job creation, but first it is necessary to consider and review the current employment situation. I want to make that review in the context of the Atlantic area of Canada.
Mention of the Atlantic area prompts me to inform the House that when it comes to unemployment, Atlantic Canada tops the list. Here are some of the statistics. Newfoundland has an unemployment rate of 15.2 per cent, New Brunswick 11.3 per cent, Nova Scotia 10.2 per cent and Prince Edward Island 9.9 per cent. That compares with a Canadian average that is much lower than that figure. There are 37,000 people unemployed in the Province of Nova Scotia as of October; Newfoundland has 33,000 people unemployed; Prince Edward Island, 5,000; New Brunswick, 34,000. We simply cannot carry on with that level of unemployment in the Atlantic area and with that number of persons unemployed and beset with all the social and other problems that go with unemployment. It is even worse than that, as other hon. members have pointed out.
The method of acquiring the unemployment statistics in Canada does not take into account the thousands across this
November 19, 1981

nation and the thousands in Atlantic Canada who have stopped looking for work, who have given up the search for employment, and who stay at home or find other ways to eke out a living other than seeking employment through government channels. They are not included in this group of people.
If you were to conduct a fair examination, Mr. Speaker, you would find that the employment rate in a province like Newfoundland is not really 15.2 per cent, it is more like 20 per cent. Similar figures can be extended for the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. While the statistics may be valid in a comparative and continuing sense, they are not valid as an indicator of how many people are actually out of work and suffering from lack of employment.
Even with the horrifying statistics that we have of 891,000 people unemployed across Canada, 109,000 of them being in the Atlantic area, it is even worse than that, Mr. Speaker. What will we do about this situation? It is in that context of the serious unemployment situation that we must approach the subject of job creation.
What action has Parliament taken? Last Thursday, November 12, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) introduced his budget to the House. The minister claims that there are positive steps taken in the budget to relieve the unemployment situation. In response to questions, the minister said that the government is mounting employment programs through the community employment program and other programs and that the government will spend as much as $500 million on those programs. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce continually indicates to the House that the government will launch programs of a similar magnitude. One has to place that $500 million in line with other government expenditures. I will name you some of them.
The Government of Canada has spent at least that amount of money on Mirabel airport, and it continues to chalk up deficits at the rate of an additional $50 million each year. The Canadian Post Office in past years has accrued deficits of $500 million. The St. Lawrence Seaway wrote off a debt of $600 million. The Government of Canada has spent over $140 million relocating those groups of unfortunate people, who are generally described as the boat people, across Canada. That is the way in which the Government of Canada spends money. It spends hundreds of millions of dollars.
When the government said it would allocate $500 million for job creation in employment programs to relieve the drastic unemployment that exists in Canada, it is really accomplishing very little in comparison with its other expenditures. I am not impressed with the government's efforts.
We need positive action; we need to address the real problem of unemployment. What do we receive? We receive general statements from the Minister of Finance, as stated in the Speech from the Throne and repeated in the House by people such as the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The statements are of such a general nature as to be totally meaningless to the nearly one million Canadians unemployed, statements such as "We have to work to bring the interest rate down so as to generate industrial activity and relieve unem-
Job Creation
ployment in Canada". The task is much more concise and cogent than that. We must have definite programs that attack the problem, not only to relieve the immediate situation but to expand beyond that and create solutions of a more permanent nature.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has referred, for example, to the difficulties in the auto industry. The unemployment problems in the auto industry have much to do with the auto pact that was negotiated between Canada and the United States. The terms of the auto pact did not take into account the changes in customer preferences, namely, the move to small cars because of the increased cost of energy. Why have the costs of energy increased? Because the government did not have the foresight to recognize the problems that have now arisen and, in the same way, the government did not have the foresight to recognize the types of problems that would beset the auto industry as time went by.
The government cannot simply and categorically characterize the problems of the auto industry as a problem that has to be resolved by the private sector, because the government is very much responsible for making that a problem in today's context by the kind of negotiations that it carried out. Anyone who is knowledgeable of the problems raised by the auto pact will tell you that it will be years before Canada again receives the benefits that were intended to be bestowed by the auto pact. In the meantime, we have and will have substantial unemployment in the automobile industry.
On the surface the issue may not appear to be relevant to the situation in the Atlantic area where we have other reasons for our unemployment problem, but one has to look at these problems in the national context. Indeed, the government has recognized that by stressing the importance of mobility of the Canadian labour force and stressing the issue to the point where it has been included in the constitutional proposal. The government has underlined and entrenched the rights of Canadians to travel across this country to seek and obtain employment.
When the maritime provinces become concerned about job losses in the fishing industry and in other maritime industries, we want to know that jobs will be available in other parts of Canada. We are affected by the difficulties in the auto industry. We have to realize and recognize that the unemployment problem affects all Canadians not only in that they are unable to earn income but also it affects them in social terms. It is destructive to family life. It is impossible for many people accustomed to employment and to earning an income for them to carry on a normal life without the benefit of that employment.
It is one of the most serious problems that we can have in Canada, and it is a problem that goes beyond the difficulties that are created by constitutional changes and beyond the difficulties that are created by other measures in which this government is involved. It is a problem that demands immediate attention and immediate action.
What will we do about the problem in the future? The answer is to establish job-creation programs that will relieve

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
the problem for the present and resolve it for the future. There are a number of things the government can do. Some of them have already beeh described.
While I do not want to be negative about government efforts to provide jobs for Canadians, I do want to emphasize the fact that the government simply is not doing enough, and what it is doing is not effective.
First, there is a great deal of uncertainty about what amount of money and effort the government spends on job-creation activity. The budget document would have one believe that the expenditure on projects such as Canada Community Development is in the area of $500 million. However, the documents issued by the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicate that the sum is much smaller. I have a letter from the minister that says that $113 million will be spent on the Canada community development project and then the whole program was cancelled, Mr. Speaker.
We are not always impressed with the figures released by the minister, the person now responsible for the finances of Canada, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. We also heard from the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) who lauded his government's efforts. In Cape Breton there is an expression to the effect that some people tell the truth rather carelessly, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond when he lauded the government for its efforts to cure unemployment, told the truth rather carelessly. He referred to the efforts made in the Cape Breton coal mines and the expenditure there of $100 million to create hundreds of jobs. The government has announced that program on three or four occasions, Mr. Speaker. It is similar to the situation with the Panamax Dry Dock to be installed in the shipyards in Halifax. That announcement has been made on two or three occasions. I could go on and on with the announcements, the preannouncements-


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Would the hon. member entertain a question at this time?


Howard Edward Crosby: I will be glad to entertain a question at the conclusion of my address, Mr. Speaker. As you know, and as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond knows, my time is limited.


An hon. Member:: When are you going to start?


Howard Edward Crosby: With your permission, I will continue, Mr. Speaker. I believe that job creation in the Atlantic area has to centre on ocean related industries. Those industries in particular are fishing, energy development offshore, marine transportation, which consists of onshore facilities and shipbuilding and, of course, there has to be a general concern for the development of resources. In the fishing industry, last August two companies-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Tobin).


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield to my colleague if the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) is prepared to answer a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Halifax West.


Howard Edward Crosby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to conclude my remarks let me say, as I already have, that the-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my address.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was seeking the floor on a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak instead. I yielded some time to my colleague to answer a question, but the hon. member for Halifax West just wanted to continue with his speech.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be confusion on the government side. It was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that point of order made about as much sense as everything else the hon. member said in the last 15 minutes, which was not a lot. The only thing that the hon. member for Halifax West and the NDP have in common is that they are both very good at telling us that the solution to the problem in the short term is to create jobs. Despite 40 minutes of careful listening to the comments of a member from each party opposite, I did not hear one sensible, serious solution offered to the House. They have none. They are bankrupt of ideas.
I want to address myself first of all to the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax West. He told us today that he supported job-creation measures; that this was a good idea and there should be more of it. This is the party which for a few short months, Mr. Speaker, managed to cancel the CCDP, which he now supports; slashed the small craft harbour's budget-and he comes from Atlantic Canada-which he now supports; allowed freezer trawlers in the Gulf of St. Lawrence thus pushing the labour intensive inshore fishermen out of the water, whom he now supports; cancelled the summer youth program which gave jobs to college students so that they could go back to university in the fall, which he now supports-I could go on and on Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Halifax West says that he is not impressed with this government's efforts to create jobs. I want to say categorically that I am not impressed with his sudden conversion and support of the policies of the government, the policies that we restored upon returning to government in
November 19, 1981

February, 1980, all of which had been slashed by his administration.
I represent the riding in Newfoundland of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe and I am proud to represent that riding. I am proud of the people and the province that I come from. I say with my head high and my chest out that in Newfoundland we have experienced, perhaps more than most Canadians, many of the hardships and social disruptions that result every time that an economy, whether it be on a national, international or western world basis, is shaken. I know the effects of high unemployment and I know the effects of an economy that is not stable.
I wanted to say in my first words tonight that I was totally amazed, astonished, perhaps even saddened, that the party in the corner which my colleague calls the pink rump, continues to find great joy-perhaps even pleasure, judging by the smiling faces that are now exhibited-whenever Canadians feel the effects of high unemployment or a disrupted economy.
Why do they find pleasure in that, Mr. Speaker? It is because that is the party which has continued to assume that Canadian people are stupid. Government has a responsibility which is not to be taken lightly. That is the party that is convinced that the way to be elected is to hold out the proverbial carrot to the Canadian people. That is the party that spends its time trying to figure out what it thinks Canadians want to hear instead of using its energies and intelligence, little as it is, to find solutions to complex and real problems.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals have done a great job for Newfoundland over the last few years.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, we have done a great job for Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders have recognized it. The only NDP member we had-good man that he is, good friend that he is- has gone back to practice his original profession and I am proud to say that I had a little something to do with that!
My blood boils, Mr. Speaker. I have been here nearly two years as a Member of Parliament and I spent a couple of years as an executive assistant in Newfoundland, so I have learned just a little-and I have a lot more to learn-about the political process. One thing that I have learned is that people in this country are tired-


An hon. Member:: Of Liberals.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -of pipedreams. They are tired of politicians who are prepared to raise unrealistic expectations if there is a chance of political benefit. They are tired of that brand of simplistic solution.
The other night 1 had the irritation, I suppose, of watching the finance critic for the NDP speak on CBC on the program "This Week in Parliament". I sat and listened, and it was just like today. I think it lasted ten minutes. The hon. member spent ten minutes telling me, as an interested Canadian, "There is another way, ladies and gentlemen. We can all be living on the edge of a bowl of cherries. There is no problem. We have the solutions." My goodness, he had me captivated! I
Job Creation
was almost ready-but God forbid I should even admit it-to run across to that side of the House. I was excited. However, before I knew what was happening, the program was finished, and the last words I heard echoing against the walls were, "Was there another way?" I never heard it. What is the other way? For God's sake, tell us! It is the party of empty rhetoric.
Let me tell hon. members about the ways this government has provided jobs. Let met tell hon. members to listen and learn. In my own province of Newfoundland this year, we had a very bad fishery. No doubt, hon. members opposite would tell us that the government members were out chasing away the fish.


An hon. Member:: There you go!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The people of Canada are intelligent enough, hon. members might be surprised to know, that they can recognize there could be a bad fishery from time to time. How did this government respond? Representatives of the fisheries union of Newfoundland-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -the cabinet representative from Newfoundland-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -and Members of Parliament from Newfoundland and interested fishermen from Newfoundland gathered in Ottawa. There was no program to offer in immediate response. There was none on the books. However, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) and the president of the fishermen's union in Newfoundland gathered together. We designed a program with $1 million in funds, and we put thousands of fishermen back to work. We helped them get their UIC benefits. That is not empty rhetoric; that is action.
Let me tell hon. members about the program which the party of the hon. member for Halifax West cancelled a short while after it formed the government. The Canada community development program is a highly targetable, cash-based program directed toward the creation of jobs in areas where high unemployment, slow economic growth and low levels of business activity are continuing problems. We have examples throughout Atlantic Canada, including my own province, of that kind of situation.
Last year, in 1981, $110 million which would have otherwise been cancelled by the Conservative party, was allocated to these programs. In this country, it created 20,000 jobs. This year that program, beginning now, has more than 8,000 applications, and the jobs this year will exceed, if not equal, those created by last year's program.
I suppose that when one talks in numbers, considering the amount of money and jobs, it is sometimes very difficult for

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
one to stop and reflect and to put a human face, a flesh and blood and bones face, on the response that a program generates. The hon. member continues to laugh. Every time I say "flesh and bones" or talk about the problems people are experiencing, this hon. member laughs.


An hon. Member:: NDP!


Brian Vincent Tobin: He smiles with pleasure. He says, "Ah, there is a potential to go out, make a promise and pass out the carrot. They are stupid enough to believe me. Perhaps I will get a vote or two". He is a foolish man. People are not that stupid.
Let me tell Your Honour about the kind of programs we have initiated. In my own riding, in the northern peninsula of Newfoundland, there have been three or four major, small craft harvest projects. What happened? My own minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Minister for Employment and Immigration collaborated. The Minister for Employment and Immigration put up the labour dollars; the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans put up the material dollars. They built wharves perhaps costing $150,000 which would have cost at least $300,000 or $400,000 had they been contracted out. That is why the Conservative party wanted to cancel the program. It meant that one or two more of their friends would have had a contract.


An hon. Member:: What have they been doing for the last 20 years?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Those programs helped people who had a disastrous fishery. They will again survive the winter this year with dignity, with paycheques coming in with their names on them instead of social assistance. I want to tell hon. members that these are proud people.
I do not care where one goes in Canada. One could go anywhere in rural Canada. I can speak best about Atlantic Canada, whether Cape Breton, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland. Is that not what life is about? Is it not dignity? The government has given dignity back to those people, the dignity which was taken away by the previous, short-lived Conservative administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The areas of activity under Canada Works, Canada community development programs, generally correspond closely with the priorities of federal departments. In some cases, this enables other federal departments to encourage community organizations to submit quality proposals and subsequently to provide technical advice and support to these organizations.
Let me give hon. members another example. A few days ago in my riding in the town of Stephenville, a group of people called me up and said, "Look, we are coming tomorrow. We want to meet this minister, that minister and the other guy. We have a proposal which we think can work." These are serious, sober and intelligent people. They said, "We have a proposal which we think can work and can put handicapped
people to work. It will allow them the dignity of jobs, perhaps for the first time in many years". Those people came on 24 hours notice.
I am proud to say that the Minister of Employment and Immigration met with those people on 24 hours notice and the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) met those people on 24 hours notice. They left Ottawa with a program which will put some people to work in that town, people who, perhaps for years, have never had such an opportunity. These people have been lost and hidden. We have forgotten the handicapped too often in this country. They will now have an opportunity to have the dignity which comes with work. These are the kinds of people to whom these programs can reach out and respond, and these people will have an opportunity to respond as well.
Throughout the Atlantic and Pacific regions of Canada, approximately half a million dollars of CCDP funds have been devoted to the development of the salmon fishery to ensure that this fishery is enhanced, stocks are conserved and maintained and encouraged to grow.
More than $8 million of CCDP funds have been committed during the past year to projects involving tourism developments in many parts of Canada. Another $26.8 million was committed to projects which restore or develop facilities in communities.
I would like to say again, because many hon. members do not realize this, that I know of examples in all parts of Canada, and I can think of a couple in my own riding, where people in communities which are perhaps as old as 150, 160 or 200 years, aided by this program, perhaps for the first time in their lives, went out with picks and shovels, the sweat of their brows and determination to put in a water line. Perhaps every person in the House takes running water for granted. One turns on the tap, and it is there. That is the kind of-yes, almost the kind of miracle which can happen when people are allowed to help themselves. This is what can happen when one does not tell them, "We can come in with a multimillion dollar contract in any part of Canada for any construction company and give you water", and when one does not offer the unrealistic expectations of the NDP, when one says to people, "If you are willing to help yourselves, we will help you", and they do. These are quality programs. Perhaps it is even a miracle to have running water in communities which have not had it in years. I am proud to see that happen. That is the responsibility of provincial governments. In Newfoundland, it is that of the Tory provincial government. However, if these federal programs were not available, there would still not be even the basic necessity of running water.
Because I know my time is about to run out let me conclude by saying, that not one hon. member on this side of the House, not one member of this government, wants to play games. We are not interested in illusions. We recognize that today many Canadians in this country are experiencing difficulty. We must recognize that. It is a fact. However, we are determined to carry out our duty in those circumstances with a sense of responsibility. We are not prepared to be the masters of illusion or the prophets of doom and gloom. We are not
November 19, 1981

prepared, as the Conservative government would have us do, to balance the books on the backs of the people of this country who can least afford it.


Otto John Jelinek: That's what you are doing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We have had a budget of restraint because we recognize the reality.


Otto John Jelinek: Twenty-two per cent interest.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We have had a budget of equity which, for once, asked Canadians of every income level to pay their fair share and no more, a budget which will result in millions of taxpayers in this country getting a tax break.
I want to say of the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party, it is NDP, no definite policies. Sterling Lyon called it something else. I will not go that far, but I will say at least NDP, no definite policies. They change from day to day.


An hon. Member:: You are showing your colours now.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I want to assure the hon. member, in case there was ever any doubt in his mind, that 1 am no supporter of Sterling Lyon. And in case you have any further doubts, I am no support of yours either.
The motion put forward is a nefarious and a nonsensical one. It is one to be expected. At least it is consistent. But we in this party will continue to govern, and I suppose the key words are, with responsibility.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall resist the temptation to comment on the address made by the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). If he believes he is living in an economy which is healthy and helped by this budget, I can tell him he is living in the land of Oz.
This particular motion before the House has been well drafted. It is something which concerns me since I have become an elected member as it has never before. I want to explain this to the hon. member who never contributes, who is sitting in the back and who always makes his contributions from his seat. I ask him to rise in the House and to put his views forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) rising on a point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, this shows the incompetence and total lack of responsibility on the part of the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


David Charles Dingwall: I made my speech earlier today.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He was at the back watching cartoons.
Job Creation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) has the floor.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell members of the House what has happened in Cambridge over the last few weeks. First, 425 people have been laid off by Admiral. Those lay-offs affect approximately 1500 people. Many of them have been to my riding office. I have been to the plant. The concern and the tragedy of those people gives one a sense of desperation. In addition to that, 15 miles down the road where Massey-Ferguson is located in the city of Brantford, 1700 people have been laid off. Many of them live in Cambridge. At Budd Automotive, a plant which is close to the boundary of Cambridge, although it is actually located in the city of Kitchener, lay-offs have occurred. At the Savage shoe factory, lay-offs have occurred. I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) will be coming to this House before the end of the month to make an announcement with respect to the extension of tariffs. If the tariffs are not extended, I can tell hon. members there will be massive lay-offs in the shoe industry in Cambridge. We are looking at a desperate situation.
I had hoped this budget would give some relief to people and a justification for their belief that they have a right to work. We were looking for jobs. But there is nothing in the budget to encourage this party to believe that the budget would help with jobs.
I have a few comments of criticism respecting this budget. We know that Mr. John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, represents 62,000 men and women in Canada. Yesterday he gave what I think is the most withering criticism as it affects small business. This is what the news release said:
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has declared war on the MacEachen budget, calling it the most serious threat to enterprise in Canada since Edgar Benson's White Paper on Tax Reform in 1969.
In addition to that, Mr. Bulloch accused the Department of Finance officials of demonstrating a shocking lack of practical knowledge of the business community and an unconscionable ignorance of the functioning of capital markets.
The tide is just starting to come in in terms of adverse criticism with respect to this budget. Mr. Bulloch has gone to war once before with respect to this matter. I ask all Canadians and I ask all members of the House to go to war against this insidious document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Chris Speyer: It is not enough to speak in bald generalities. It is important to be specific. I would like to talk about five different areas as they affect small business, and 1 am happy to see that the minister is in the House to hear my comments.
The Small Business Development Bond has been truly gutted. The whole purpose of the bond is in its name. It is for development and for expansion. But that is no longer the case. The Small Business Development Bond is now a misnomer. It

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
is nothing more than a bail-out provision. We know that a moratorium has been put on those bonds by the Royal Bank of Canada and by the Bank of Nova Scotia. I am concerned that it is the banks' belief that they are dealing with failures or cases of insolvency. They are not dealing with cases of expansion of business and the creation of jobs. Although I welcome the extension of this bond to unincorporated businesses and farmers, in circumstances where healthy businesses cannot expand this bond will have no impact. Healthy business which expand have the jobs. I think the bond itself has lost its effectiveness. That belief is fortified when 1 look at the figures in the budget papers. It says the contribution of the federal government with respect to the bond will amount to only $20 million. Last year the federal government contributed $200 million. Projections are there for the next three years.
Let me move on to the capital cost allowance. I asked the minister yesterday why there was such a massive tax grab. He said from his place in the House of Commons that the federal government would not be receiving one cent. Not one dime. That was in Hansard for yesterday.


John Leslie Evans: That is not true and you know it.


Chris Speyer: I refer the parliamentary secretary to page 4 of the budget papers. In 1981-1982 the federal government will derive $110 million, but in fiscal 1982-1983 the federal government will derive $1.1 billion and in fiscal 1983-1984 the federal government will derive $840 million. This totals more than $2 billon for those three years. That is a massive tax grab. It is a transfer from the private to the public sector.
1 contrast that with a budget brought in on May 8, 1972, by the Hon. John Turner. Unfortunately yesterday's incentive has become today's loophole. I shall put on the record what Mr. Turner said at that time, as reported in Hansard at page 1988. He stated:
Mr. Speaker, my first words to this House as Minister of Finance last February were that my most urgent priority was jobs. This remains my first priority. No economy is working as well as it should if there are men and women in this country seeking work who cannot find it. The search for jobs is a human problem. The main thrust of this budget is to deal with this problem; to buttress the Canadian economy-to provide incentives for Canadian industry to grow and compete and provide jobs.
Then what did he do? He introduced a capital cost allowance provision for manufacturers. He pointed out that one out of every five people employed is employed by the manufacturing industry. That is still the case today. He gave the speedy write-off provisions. Mr. Turner did this for two reasons. First, to improve cash flow, and second because equipment was becoming obsolescent. He wanted equipment replaced so that Canada could move into using new technology which he foresaw at that time. But all of that has been gutted by the provisions in this budget.


John Leslie Evans: That is nonsense.


Chris Speyer: It is not nonsense. I tell the hon. member to read what the business community is saying. I ask him to check with the manufacturers' association.


John Leslie Evans: It is still faster depreciation than in the United States.


Chris Speyer: The next matter with which I want to deal has to do with the insurance industry. I had the opportunity of speaking to the president of Dominion Life in Kitchener.


Mr. Scott:: Tell the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang).


Chris Speyer: I have also spoken to the chief accountant for Mutual Life who is an actuary. There are 60,000 people who are employed in the insurance industry. Thousands of them are employed in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area. This is a very legitimate concern of these people, as expressed in the House of Commons today by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang). That Liberal member said their jobs were in peril.
In addition to that, what is of great concern is the drying up of long-term capital which insurance companies have always provided, whether the money was to be used for building a dam or a factory. This represented 30-year capital rather than short-term capital. I wonder if the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) even considered these matters when he introduced that measure in respect of policy holders, and I have in mind the reporting and three-year provisions. These measures will have a very, very deleterious effect, and I think the Minister of Finance should reconsider them as he has reconsidered other provisions.
A most important matter, it seems to me, is the limitation on the deduction of interest from investment. Nothing is more insidious. Imagine going to the bank for a loan that had anything to do with speculative shares, such as any type of junior mining stock. One is only able to deduct an amount up to the amount of income. I think this certainly breaches all precepts of tax law I have ever been aware of, and I believe it is totally unjustified. As Canadian independent business people have said, this will have an incredible effect on investment. All you have to do is to read the news release from Mr. Bulloch yesterday in respect of that matter.


An hon. Member:: Did you read the news release today from CMA? It said it was a good budget.


Chris Speyer: Yes, I have read the news release. The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak.


An hon. Member:: Have you read the news release from the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal?


Chris Speyer: Yes, I have.


An hon. Member:: Have you read the news release of the Chamber of Commerce of Canada?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the total effect of this budget on jobs cannot be underestimated. I congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on the drafting
November 19, 1981

of this motion. I think it is timely and I think what it says is accurate. I would ask the people of Canada to mobilize and defeat this budget.


Mr. Michel Veillette (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it seems the opposition is trying to give the House a very slanted view of the employment situation in Canada. Quoting figures on lay-offs is all very well, but when such figures include both temporary and permanent lay-offs, there is a definite bias somewhere. I am not saying that lay-offs should not be taken seriously, but let's stick to the facts.
The opposition has also claimed, Mr. Speaker, that there are no job-creation programs to compensate for recent lay-offs. Has the opposition looked into all the programs available at the present time? I realize some of these programs are relatively recent. The Canada Community Services Projects- CCSP-launched about a year ago, offer the unemployed satisfying work in the area of volunteer and community services. The program is more specifically aimed at women, native people, youth and the handicapped, in other words, those who have trouble finding new jobs. In fact, during the program's first year, 70 per cent of participants were women, 50 per cent young people, 10 per cent native people and 10 per cent were physically handicapped.
The program provides projects with start-up funds to help them find other funding sources and to become self-financing. Program funds are used to pay salaries and other general expenses as required. The CCSP budget of $11 million for 1980-81 is part of the $34 million approved by cabinet for the three years the program is intended to last. During the program's first year, there were many applications for CCSP grants. People like this program because it goes to the heart of the community and supports projects that are important to our social environment. These projects range from rehabilitation centres to daycare centres for children of working mothers. One might say, Mr. Speaker, that the program simultaneously supports two entirely different social objectives: it provides the unemployed, especially those who always have trouble finding employment, with an income and training, but it also provides the necessary funds for useful and fundamentally important projects, in order to improve the quality of life of the entire community. This is important, Mr. Speaker, because many Canadians feel that the federal government is an agency that is far removed from, and not very interested in, people's daily life. This is not true, and the proof is in programs such as the CCSP. When I hear people talking about daycare centres, I notice that they never mention the federal government's involvement.
For instance, in downtown Charlottetown on Prince Edward Island, the Rochford Square Child Care Centre offers services that are not available anywhere else at the present time. The centre is adapted to the requirements of people who work on shifts, since it opens at 6.30 a.m. Furthermore, parents can
Job Creation
have lunch with their children, and children whose parents have to work late can have their dinner at the centre. The centre has a schedule and program that meet the needs of babies, young children and their working parents, while the emphasis is on single-parent families and families on welfare. It is expected that at the end of the three-year funding period, the centre will be self-sufficient and will be able to take care of 30 children. These are important projects, Mr. Speaker, in a society where more and more women are joining the labour force. During the eighties, their participation in the labour force will be substantial, and the need for this type of centre will increase accordingly. A total of 30 projects representing $721,000 have been financed under the CCSP with a view to supporting activities related to the provision of daycare services.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that this year has been designated as the International Year of the Handicapped has made the public aware of the problems facing the handicapped. These problems are encountered at home, at work and in the community. In Saskatoon, a project called "Very Much a Part of the Picture" is at work to help the mentally retarded. This project aims at creating a pool of young volunteers to work with these people and prepare them to face life productively and positively. These people have to develop abilities which we all take for granted and which are necessary to live in society. The young people who take part in this project as teachers or counsellors will learn the art of public education. They will also acquire knowledge in the fields of organization and management.
The handicapped are not the only ones on whom attention has been focused these last few months. In our aging society, we are becoming increasingly aware of the role played by senior citizens in Canada. I have heard the French expression les gens de Tage d'or several times recently. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I do not like this expression. It creates a false impression of wealth. I prefer the expression personnes du troisieme age. The English expression "senior citizens" is also wrong. It is as though the world belonged only to junior citizens. Unfortunately, it happens too often that older people are cast aside and left by themselves. Today, older people are active citizens who are interested in their community and willing to share their knowledge and experience.
With the help of the CCSP, the YM-YWCA in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, has developed a number of programs for older people and will make good use of their experience by hiring them once the programs are in place. Programs including swimming, fitness, information on nutrition and the prevention of crimes of which the older people are victims will be integrated in regular activities. If possible, classes will be held in old folk homes, in centres for religious groups and other organizations and led by volunteers. To this end, the workers of the CCSP will also recruit and train volunteers.
The YM-YWCA will organize a phone-a-friend service for older people living alone to give them social contact with the

November 19, 1981
Job Creation
community and help those who are confined at home. The sound of a friendly voice on the telephone every day and the assurance that they have a friend to call in case of need is very reassuring for the older members of every community. During the first year of the project, the CCSP will provide $11,814 to employ one person full time. Since the planned activities are designed to produce revenues, the YM-YWCA expects to keep the project employee on a permanent basis. In total, 33 projects amounting to $723,000 have been financed under the CCSP to support services for older people.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the need to specify whether we are speaking about temporary or permanent lay-offs. I maintain that this must be clarified because we have to look further than statistics.
Yes, it is important to obtain statistics on a sector of the economy, and figures are supposed to give a true picture of the situation, but the hard facts are, right now people are unemployed. This government has been innovative in its approach to job creation. It has become involved in the community through programs such as the Canada Community Services Projects, in order to serve Canadians in their own communities. When I hear the opposition accuse the government of lacking initiative, I realize how important it is to talk about what we are doing. What is more significant yet is the fact that although columns of figures may be useful, the people represented by these figures and their real situation in life are at least equally important. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Canada Community Services Projects are doing excellent work by going beyond the statistics.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left to me this evening I would like to begin by replying to some of the earlier comments made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) who spoke this afternoon. The minister was obviously in some anguish and very hurt that we in this corner of the House had not yet come forward to say "thank you" to the government for closing some of the loopholes in our taxation system, an action of which that minister was obviously proud.
Quite frankly, some of us may have wanted to say thank you but the government has been pulling the plug out of those loopholes so quickly, two of them in four days, that there was no time to say thank you. We are beginning to be thankful that this budget debate can only go on for six days or so because if it went on any longer, the government might manage to pull the plugs out of all of the loopholes and we would be left with that unholy mess of a taxation system with all its inequities, with which we have had to suffer for many years. It is still full of inequities and it appears that the government is determined to reintroduce some of those inequities which they attempted to remove a few days ago.
As I said, if we had time to say thank you, we might have said it, but we do not know if there will be anything left to be
thankful for. Certainly there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work, many as a result of permanent shutdowns, particularly in my industry, the forest industry, who have nothing to be thankful to the government for.
In a recent newspaper column in my constituency of Kootenay West, there is an article in the Kootenay Reporter called "Rest in Peace, Hadikin Lumber 1952-1981". This article does give a picture of what is happening and reflects not only on their interest rate policy and market problems but also on the devastating situation we are facing in this country because government and industry have not done a job to ensure there will be enough trees to cut to provide even continued production on past bases, let alone meet the hoped for expansion in that industry which could take place and provide additional jobs in the years to come.
The article starts off:
Some people came in cars, pickups, chartered buses and even chartered flights to witness and take part in one of the most unusual auctions to be held in the Kootenays.
An entire sawmill was up for bids.
This was October, 1981.
The new owners of Hadikin's sawmill in Brilliant had put the entire contents and buildings of the mill up for public auction.
It attracted the curious and the serious. The serious were easily identified by their numbered bidding cards in hand and by the orange hats passed out to each registered bidder.
There was an odd almost festive atmosphere on the mill site as throngs of people, sipping coffee and munching doughnuts milled about while the engines of various trucks, skidders and loaders roared around them. Potential bidders peered under hoods and manipulated the controls as they searched for the best buy.
A few steps away from this commotion, the mill sat, strangely devoid of the lumber, sawdust, and clutter normally found in a sawmill. A few people, driven by curiosity or with an eye toward an investment, clambered up and down steps and ladders, around the trim saws, the edger, the debarker and over infeed tables whose chains a very short while ago carried a steady flow of lumber.
Numbered yellow tags hung from chains, motors, saws, even shelving and the building itself.
It was hard to imagine the various integrated components of a functioning sawmill being reduced to a mere number on the auctioneer's list. It was even more difficult to comprehend the livelihood of some 75 former employees disappearing in such a piecemeal fashion.
That presents quite a picture, and I take no glee from it, in spite of the parsimonious ramblings of some of the hon. members opposite a few minutes ago. There is no glee for me in watching my neighbours, my constituents and my fellow workmates find themselves too old to work, too young to die and out at 58 after working 30 years in an operation along with many of their neighbours. Many of the people are Russian Doukhobors, and they will have a very difficult time- especially the older ones-attempting to obtain jobs anywhere because the illiteracy rate in that area is one of the highest in the country because of its ethnic make-up. The Minister of Employment and Immigration should pay some attention to this kind of thing because there is a job to be done within his department to ensure that we lift illiteracy levels, as one of my colleagues said just a few days ago in the House. That is another problem we have.
November 19, 1981

It is not just an individual problem like the problem Brother Tony Brown exemplified at our meeting this afternoon with representatives of people across the country who are having problems with interest rates. Tony works at Weldwood in its plywood division on Kent Street. He is a member of the Vancouver local of the IWA, and since August of this year that plant has been operating on a two week on-two week off basis. There is no sign of improvement for the remainder of this year and no sign into the new year.
Tony Brown has a $59,000 mortgage at 14.5 per cent. On December 16 he will have to renegotiate that mortgage. He has a wife and three young children and, in spite of what some people say in the House and outside the House, people who love to lecture other people on the sacrifices they should make, he did not go out and buy something beyond his means. His home is very modest. It is a row house condominium. It has three bedrooms, but he has three children. It is very modest accommodation. In the city of Vancouver it would have to be modest, with only a $59,000 mortgage and bought only a short time ago.
Like many others in the forest industry Tony has to renew his mortgage, and high mortgage rates have vastly reduced housing starts in North America and particularly in Canada. Tony Brown works in the plywood division. Eight-five per cent of plywood production from western Canada is sold in Canada, and the Canadian market is much worse even than the market in the United States, Reagan, his friends and his Trojan horse notwithstanding. Tony Brown's paycheque is reduced 50 per cent, and his mortgage payments are currently $732.88 per month. When he renegotiates his mortgage, as he will be doing in the next few weeks, he will be facing payments upwards of $1,200 a month.
Tony Brown faces this increase when he earns only a two-week on, two-week off paycheque. That surely is a crisis. Hon. members opposite do not like us to talk about a crisis. They seem to think we take some glee from it. There is no glee at all.


Norman Kelly: You revel in it.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: There is no glee at all. This past summer I found myself the only member of my union in all of British Columbia who was able to pay his dues. Do hon. members think I got glee out of that? I did not. That is the situation we are in because of the crumbling housing market for which this government is in large part responsible. It is worse in this country than it is south of the border, again Mr. Reagan notwithstanding.
Hon. members opposite say we should give them some answers, but what are the answers they have given to people in the forest industry who are being laid off or faced with plant closures? One of their answers in the last few days has been to introduce Bill C-78, which contains the principle of unemployment sharing. The government wants to save money on unemployment insurance. Hon. members opposite want people who
Job Creation
have been laid off to share their unemployment. That is certainly an advance to the rear, and there will not be many workers in my industry who will be thankful for it.
What have hon. members opposite done for those who are suffering because of plant closures? They have decided to plug a loophole and attack severance pay. People who have lost their livelihoods for good but have managed through their collective strength to negotiate some severance pay so that they will have something to tide them over, to get themselves re-educated or retrained or to grow old enough to get some pittance of a pension will have even that minimal amount of severance pay taxed. That is the kind of help they are getting. No, thank you very much; we can do without that kind of help. That is punishment, and surely to heaven these people are being taxed enough and punished enough already.


An hon. Member:: Are they?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: An hon. member opposite asks, "Are they?" I can assure hon. members that they are. Over 11,000 forest industry employees in western Canada have already lost their livelihoods, as have over 8,000 spouses and over 18,000 children as a direct consequence of the interest rates which are part of the policy of the Bank of Canada, which gets its marching orders from this government and from the government to the south of us with which this government obviously shares an economic philosophy.


Mr. Keeper:: And the one we defeated in Manitoba.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: And that one too, the "Sterling" government, in line with the sterling speech we heard from across the way a few moments ago.
Some of these people have lost their homes. Someone asked if these people are being taxed enough already. On a mortgage principal of $50,000-modest in light of B.C. housing prices- renewed on September 1, 1980, for one year, the increase alone in interest charges effective this past September absorbed $3.20 per hour of pre-tax earnings if the borrower is lucky enough to work full time. Every worker in this situation in Canada is being charged an average of $3.20 per hour to pay for the increased interest rates which have resulted from the policies of hon. members opposite. Negotiated wage increases are ranging from $1.25 to $1.90. This government has taken away an average of $3.20, and hon. members opposite have the unmitigated gall to suggest that if these people demand a little more, they will introduce some newfangled tax system to do to them what their wage controls in 1975 could not do.
Someone is benefiting from all this, and it surely is not us. It is not my friends to my right, and I do not think it is any of the individuals opposite. However, somebody is. The transfer in wealth as a result of the interest rate policy of this government works out to $10.6 billion a year from the poor to the relatively rich. Somebody is getting it. My friend, the finance critic for this party, asked a question on this the other day. He did not receive an answer. There are no answers coming from this government or from the Minister of Finance.

November 19, 1981
Adjournment Debate
I want to conclude simply by saying that at a time when our national economic house is on fire, this government seems content simply to do some pre-Christmas housecleaning, and that is just not good enough.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, when I put my name down for an adjournment debate it was because of the questions I asked on November 2 to which I received what I thought were, if not unsatisfactory replies, certainly incomplete replies. The questions had to do with the proposed peacekeeping force in the Sinai Desert.
As reported at page 12389 of Hansard, in my question I quoted an Associated Press report which stated "Canada says it will participate but has not yet been asked". Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have your attention. If you don't mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to carry on this debate without being interrupted. Thank you.
When this question was asked, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) replied that they are talking about it. He said, "We have given it some consideration, but I have no further announcement to make at this time".
Let us look at what the newspapers have been saying since this was first raised. I quote as follows from the June 29 issue of the Montreal Gazette-.
MacGuigan told reporters on Friday that Canada has not received an invitation and is not likely to.
I quote from The Globe and Mail of June 26:
In Ottawa, a spokesman for the Department of External Affairs said Canada has not been formally requested to provide troops for the peacekeeping force, but added that External Affairs Mark MacGuigan would consider such a request.
Mr. MacGuigan has recently cast doubt on Canada's participation in a project that is not sponsored by the UN. Ottawa is apparently not eager to ally itself with the Camp David accords while trying to improve relations with the Arab world.
I quote from The Globe and Mail of May 22:
-Defence Minister Gilles Lamontagne said a request for Canadian troops would be favourably considered.... The United States is certain to provide the main body of peacekeeping troops because Israel wants a U.S. role as added protection against attack.
Mr. Lamontagne's reported comments are the strongest indication yet that Canada is ready to take part. The Defence Minister is reported to have said the issue has not yet come up in cabinet.
This leaves the entire country in a state of bewilderment as to whether Canada is committing troops to the Sinai peace force or not. As members realize, it was originally thought up at the Camp David accord between Egypt, Israel and the United States. It is not a UN peacekeeping force. Among the precepts that have been clearly set out by a former Liberal secretary of state for external affairs, it is stated quite clearly that before Canada commits a peacekeeping force, it would want it to be preferably under UN Control.
I would like to read a few words by Professor John Holmes, a counsellor at the Canadian Institute of International Affairs and Bissell professor of Canadian-American relations at the University of Toronto. He said in June:
Participation, however, raises tough problems. Although the force would be for surveillance only, the main component might well be American and thus misconstrued as the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force of which all Arabs are wary ... Whatever the good intentions of Washington, we would Find ourselves an adjunct of their foreign and defence policy over which we would have little influence ... In a crisis Canadians could be asked to act as we had never intended. Who would be in command?
I will refer to what the Hon. Mitchell Sharp set out as being the precepts that should apply if Canada is thinking about getting involved. They are:
(3) The peacekeeping force should be responsible to a political authority, preferably the United Nations.
(6) Canadian participation in the force must be acceptable to all concerned.
(8) There must be an agreement and equitable method of Financing the operation.
I submit that several of these criteria have not been complied with today. John R. Walker, of Southam News, a very learned journalist in this area, wrote:
Finally the Canadian government will want to know what is happening to the two massive military air bases Israel has at Etzion and Eitam in the Sinai. The U.S. military has been eyeing both these highly sophisticated bases for some time, egged on by Israelis who hate to see the equipment lost.
The Americans would love to have these bases available for their proposed Rapid Deployment Force-
I would like now to turn to the other questions I asked. There were three questions: whether there was a commitment, whether Parliament would be consulted before any commitment was made, and how many troops were involved. Further to that, 1 would like to point out that in evidence given before the Senate committee looking into the state of the armed forces this year. Brigadier General P. J. Mitchell, Director general, Land Doctrine and Operations, Department of National Defence said:
-if the NATO deployment and augmentation plans that have been described to you already were implemented, there would remain in Canada, available for deployment to an Arctic threat such as you describe, barring any other commitments beyond the NATO commitments you have talked about, a battalion-sized unit in eastern Canada and a battalion-sized unit in western Canada that would be available for such tasks.
The other day I asked if the government will explain to our NATO allies whether, if we send a sizeable force to Sinai, we
November 19, 1981

will have to welsh on some of the commitments we have made to NATO. Finally, in the way of parliamentary approval for use of Canadian forces abroad, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson who said in the House:
-if a request is made involving the use of substantial numbers of Canadians abroad, we would bring the matter before Parliament before any final decision is made.
I ask for reassurance on this point. I sincerely hope that the parliamentary secretary, who has had some three weeks to consider the matter, will assure the House that it will be brought to Parliament before any final commitment is made. I hope the government will let me know how many troops are involved and whether we will notify our NATO allies that we will be incapable of carrying out our other commitments if we carry out this commitment.


Hon. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As the hon. member is aware, the Camp David accord was signed in the fall of 1978 by Egypt, Israel and the United States, and strongly supported by Canada and many other countries. As a result of the Camp David accord, the peace treaty was signed on March 26, 1979 by Egypt and Israel. Under the terms of that treaty, Israel was to withdraw from the last third of the Sinai in April, 1982. There would be a deployment of UN forces and observers. However, failing the UN force, the U.S.A. was to establish and maintain the force itself. By May, 1981, it became obvious that the UN security council was unable to agree in providing a force; therefore, Egypt and Israel agreed to the establishment of a multinational force and observers.
We discussed Canada's position with the force with many countries. As evidenced in the past, we are always available for this type of operation, but we have not been officially asked to participate. Therefore, no commitment has been made. When questions are asked in the House as to how long the force will be there, the number of men and how much equipment will be involved, these questions are hypothetical.
The hon. member asked a very important question as to notification of the House. In the past, approval of the House has been sought when participation in a peacekeeping operation involved a substantial Canadian force. I think this has been the tradition in the House.
On the question of U.S. control, we have no agreement; but the guidelines so far are that the force commander will be a Norwegian lieutenant-general. He will report to a civilian director general who, in the first instance, will be a U.S. military citizen. Ultimately, the director-general will be under the auspices and responsible to the Egyptians and the Israelis.
As far as peacekeeping anywhere under U.S. control is concerned, the answer is no, the Canadian forces have not been under U.S. control in the recent past nor do they intend to be in the future.
Outside of the UN auspices, in the past we have participated in similar forces such as the International Commission for
Adjournment Debate
Supervision and Control in Indo-China, and also under the auspices of the UN there was the Golan Heights and the UN Truce Supervision-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


RAILWAYS-PENSIONS OF RETIRED WORKERS. (B) REPORTED PURCHASE OF GULF OIL STOCK BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PENSION FUND
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I raised questions regarding the pensions of retired workers of both the CN and CP railways. My question was directed to the then minister of labour. Rail pensioners are amongst the lowest compensated pensioners in Canada. Some former employees are receiving such measly increases as $4 per year, and some receive pensions of only $115 per month. I asked what the minister was going to do to correct this disgraceful condition. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), as I pointed out at the time, has made his position perfectly clear: he will do absolutely nothing to assist them in their time of need, and he claims that it is up to the Minister of Labour to do something.
I have pursued this matter in standing committees and I had an exchange of letters with the Minister of Transport and with the Minister of Labour, to no avail.
I have also pointed out in motions in the House that rail pensioners have had to put up with such measly increases as $77 over 19 years. This amounts to the grand total of $4 per year or 33 cents per month, resulting in $265 per month pension rate. A 33-cent increase does not go far against the odds of new record inflation rates of 12.6 per cent, a 15.2 per cent increase in food costs and an 80 cents per gallon increase in the price of gas. We are talking about rail workers who retired prior to 1972.
Earlier this year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) pointed out to me that the steady improvements in the fund's earnings resulting from such investments will allow CN to reduce its unfunded liability and increase its capacity to pay existing and future pensioners. He said that to reduce investments and make shortsighted pension increases is a sure way to pension bankruptcy, and that independent actuaries would confirm this.
This answer confirms that the Liberal government has no intention of assisting these CP and CN pensioners who are now in their seventies and eighties, Mr. Speaker.
I received a letter recently from the Minister of Transport in which he stated:
The published financial statements for CN's pension fund indicate that the fund first acquired oil and gas holdings in 1979 and that at the end of 1980 these holdings were valued at about S54 million. This represented about 2 per cent of the valuation of the CN pension fund at that point.
I wanted information about how pension funds would be used. Some of these moneys should have been used to increase pensions. That would have not bankrupted the pension fund.

November 19, 1981
Adjournment Debate
In a letter to R. W. Worraker, chairman of the National Council of CN Pensioners' Associations Inc. Robert Bandeen, president and chief executive officer of Canadian National, stated in the final paragraph that he encouraged them to continue making representations to all the bodies which have some responsibility in solving the complex issue of retirement income.
I want to point out that these pensioners are in their seventies and eighties. They have no resources with which to solve the problem at all. They get the ministerial and bureaucratic run-around from some man being paid $150,000 per year to tell them, a group of pensioners in their seventies and eighties, to find some resource to get a little bit of a pension increase. What a national disgrace this is under the Liberals!
Another excuse being used in this issue is the Pension Benefits Standards Act. If this act needs to be changed, it is up to the government to bring forth legislation to make amendments so the CN and CP can implement some form of indexing in increased pensions monthly, not in a small lump sum increase at the end of the year as they are doing now.
I plead with the parliamentary secretary to give a firm commitment tonight that the government will take immediate action to contact the CN and CP and at least arrange for a partial indexing of these retired railworkers low pensions.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has again pursued the question of railway pensions in his question on May 21. I have little to add to the frequent and, in my view, quite adequate answers he has received in the House and in correspondence.
With respect to the level of pensions, I have said before that the government fully recognizes that inflation erodes the purchasing power of a pensioner's fixed income, and is committed to finding ways of improving the pensioner's situation. The National Pension Conference was part of this effort. But the hon. member conveniently forgets the real improvements that have occurred, such as the annual increases that the CN has given since 1970 to pensioners who retired before 1973 and to their surviving spouses.
A common assumption is that the pension fund of CN is designed only to pay benefits to approximately 45,000 current recipients. If this were true, one might wonder why it could not accommodate some form of indexation. But, in fact, the fund does much more than this. Apart from refunding contributions to employees terminating service, it is required by law that there be a sufficient reserve to provide for future pensions for the 75,000 employees now in service.
The hon. member has also raised the question of the fund's investments. The Minister of Transport wrote him recently on this subject and assured him that the CN pension fund is independently administered as a vehicle for financing the obligations of the pension plan toward current or retired members or their survivors. It is not established as a vehicle for
the takeover of management control of other enterprises. The Pension Board is administered by ten members comprising five railway appointed members and five chairmen of unions representing various trades within the railway industry.


THE CONSTITUTION-PROVISION RESPECTING MANDATORY RETIREMENT
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 40. On Monday, November 16, 1981, in the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether one of my constituents, Captain Ross Stevenson, the Air Canada pilot who obtained an injunction against Air Canada to allow him to work past the mandatory retirement age of 60 will be allowed to do so.
This is not the first time I have raised this question in the House. On May 20 of this year I moved a motion in this chamber to the effect that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada introduce an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act which would end the imposition of early retirement. I made that motion then in light of the fact that Mr. Fairweather, Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in his fourth annual report dated March 31, 1981, to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, recommended to Parliament that Sections 9(2) and 14(C), allowing for the imposition of mandatory retirement, be deleted from the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The same recommendation was made by Senator Croll's special Senate committee on retirement age policies on April 15, 1980. On May 23, 1981, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) whether he would intervene in the dispute between Captain Ross Stevenson and Air Canada, allowing him to work past the age of 60. The minister clearly stated that Transport Canada has no retirement age for pilots. The only age requirement is that the applicant must be not less than 21 years of age at the time the licence is issued, and that the pilot possess an airline transport pilot's licence. Once the pilot has been issued the licence, he can continue to hold and exercise the privilege of licence, provided he can continue to meet the medical standards based on those set by ICAO, and pass periodic flight testing to demonstrate his competency.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that Captain Ross Stevenson has passed the medical standards and has passed all flight tests with flying colours.
I refer you to my comments in this House on this topic on May 29 and again on June 9, 1981. I will not repeat what I said then. Hon. members listening to this debate may refer to those speeches in Hansard.
I raise this topic again today in the hope that the accord signed on November 5, 1981, by the federal government and nine premiers to patriate the Canadian Constitution with an amending formula and a charter of rights and freedoms will remove age discrimination in collective agreements between
November 19, 1981

the federal government and its employees. It is my hope also that this new charter of rights and freedoms will protect my constituent, Mr. Stevenson, against age discrimination. Section 15(1) gives every Canadian equality before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law.
I shall quote from Section 15(1) from the notice of motion put by the Minister of Justice yesterday, November 18, 1981. It reads:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
My question in this chamber on November 16 was whether this section of the charter, specifically concerning mandatory retirement, will come into effect immediately after the Constitution is patriated, or will there be a three-year waiting period. This is the question the acting minister did not answer, and I hope that the Minister of Justice, or his parliamentary secretary, will answer today.
A clear answer to this question today will let Captain Ross Stevenson know whether he can work for Air Canada past the age of mandatory retirement of 60.
I wish to congratulate my constituent and his wife for their commitment in attempting to remove this discriminatory policy from the collective agreement between Air Canada and the Canadian Airline Pilots Association. Canada has witnessed many heroes in its 114-year history. Hopefully, Captain Stevenson will be one of those heroes who did something positive for his country.
I am very pleased that one of my constituents, Mr. Gustow Slodkowski is here listening to the debate. Mr. Slodkowski is the editor of the Polish Alliance Press of Canada. He could have retired two years ago, but he did not. His skills were
Adjournment Debate
recognized. They were put to good use and he is still the editor today.
Canada is a country which recognizes the skills of people past any mandatory retirement age and puts them to good use. I hope that the parliamentary secretary has the answer that I am seeking today for Captain Ross Stevenson.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) asked earlier this week whether Section 15 of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms when it comes into force would affect Captain Stevenson's case, an Air Canada pilot who received instruction to leave his employment at the age of 60.
The House is aware that it is improper to comment on the Stevenson case because it is currently before a human rights tribunal. I am pleased to say that Section 15 of the charter, which the hon. member has just read is now before the House.
It will be up to the courts to give a meaning to the equality rights guaranteed by the charter. These rights will not become effective until three years after the adoption of the charter in order to allow each level of government to review and amend any laws which may not conform to the non-discrimination rights. Pension laws fixing mandatory age of retirement will have to be examined closely during this process since age is one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under Section 15.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
At 10.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 20, 1981