1981-11-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian auto industry has been hit hard by high interest rates and low priced imports. One third of Ontario auto dealers could be out of business in three months if action is not taken to halt the downturn in the sales of North American cars. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens):
That this House require the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to reassess current import levels and with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, take positive measures to reduce the crippling high interest rates that are now destroying the automobile industry, the dealers, and the jobs that go with them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the native people of the country are in desperate trouble. Most of them are out of jobs. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government move immediately to increase the economic development budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that this desperate unemployment among Canada's native peoples may be attacked.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to present the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, whereas the western division of the Canadian Transport Commission ordered the abandonment of the Kirkpatrick-Carbon rail line of the CPR which carried more than half a million bushels of grain last year and served three elevators and scores of farmers and businesses, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House urges the Minister of Transport to use the authority in Section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act and order this rail line to continue, thus avoiding the extra costs of production placed on farmers and the unemployment created through the abandonment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to present the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EDUCATION
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, whereas Statistics Canada data for October shows that once again young Canadians were the group hardest hit by job losses, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That the members of the House individually wish a curse on the cabinet for its cold and callous treatment of young Canadians, and that the cabinet at least announce today that it will not cut any support for post-secondary education.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to present the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the support of hon. members on all sides of the
House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of

November 6, 1981
the fact that all parties gave unanimous support last January for the inclusion of a clause in the Constitution recognizing and affirming aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and Metis people, and in view of the fact that no aboriginal group in Canada has opposed Clause 34 or asked for its withdrawal, and further, that the only mention of aboriginal and treaty rights during this week's first ministers' conference was in support of those rights by the government of Saskatchewan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
[DOT] (mo)
That this House affirm its continued support for the unanimous decision of January 30 to entrench the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Smith said no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Manly and seconded by Mr. Fulton-shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In view of the fact all parties gave unanimous support last January for the inclusion of a clause in the Constitution recognizing and affirming aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and Native people, and in view of the fact that no aboriginal group in Canada has opposed Clause 34 or asked for its withdrawal, and further, that the only mention of aboriginal and treaty rights during this week's first ministers' conference was in support of these rights by the government of Saskatchewan, it is moved by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), and seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House affirm its continued support for the unanimous decision of January 30 to entrench the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights.
Does the House give unanimous consent to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Chair that I said no to that motion when it was called.


APPEAL TO OPPOSITION MEMBERS TO GIVE SUPPORT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas it was clearly demontrated in yesterday's historical agreement that the great Liberal principles of our government and the prophetic vision of our Prime Minister, for which he has always fought, met the wishes and expectations of all Canadians; whereas it was also clear that the Premier of Quebec attended this conference with the sole purpose of scuttling it by committing what I would call political hijacking to serve separatist ends, and since our government's perceptiveness was once more clearly established, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi):
That those few right-minded members opposite who would have liked to voice very strongly their approval for our draft resolution now cross the floor of the House and join us in the continuation and implementation of fair and equitable policies for all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
FINANCE
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance not to abandon the existing incentive for investment in Canadian feature Films, an action the minister is widely reported to be contemplating and which, if implemented, would only add the film industry to the list of those industries already destroyed by this government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and
November 6, 1981

pressing necessity. In view of the fact that a number of extremely plentiful species of wildlife have become extinct in Canada, and since, in fact, the planet is losing life forms at a rate of one species per day now which will accelerate to one species per hour by 1989 if mankind does not deal seriously with pollution and habitat protection, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), and I believe with the support of the government:
That this House urges the Minister of the Environment to move expeditiously with a wildlife policy for Canada which would include a mandate to protect the habitat of endangered species and, in co-operation with the provinces and territories, set aside world community ecological reserves and wildlife parks to preserve our precious global heritage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to present the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

S)


OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to draw to the attention of the House that due to the late proceedings last night and the rather extensive report of Hansard and Votes and Proceedings, these publications have been delayed and are not yet available.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister I hope is aware, this morning Statistics Canada established the jobless rate at 8.3 per cent of the work force. That is 989,000 Canadians on the street and looking for work. In any language that is a staggering figure, and should be unacceptable to the government. Clearly it is the gover-ment's incompetence and lack of initiative which are responsible for this situation. When is the minister going to accept his responsibility for creating employment in this country and put those people back to work?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have been working actively to deal with the situation. I remind my hon. friend of major initiatives such as the 50 per cent increase in the funding for the Defence Industry Productivity Program, a major support program for
Oral Questions
the aerospace and electronics industry. I remind my hon. friend of initiatives under the special electronics program, individual projects such as support for de Havilland, in Toronto, and Pratt & Whitney in Montreal. There have been major announcements and major commitments and initiatives under my jurisdiction and that of other ministers. We have been working actively to create jobs and to stem the effects of economic situations in our major export markets. We will be continuing these initiatives. We are very much aware of the situation and of our responsibilities.


DROP IN JOB CREATION
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, there may be major announcements, but they are certainly not major realities. The minister must be aware that the amount of unemployment has not only gone up but job creation has gone down. Last month employment creation by this government went down by 68,000 jobs. Statistics this morning show that job creation is down again for the second straight month-in manufacturing 22,000 jobs lost, in primary industries 16,000 jobs lost in one month alone. Surely the government is not proud of that record. This country is in a recession. Ordinary people are being hurt. They want to know in practical terms what the government is going to do about it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there has been a very strong and positive record of job creation for most of the period since this government took office, except for the most recent months. We are working-


Mr. Clark:: No one else is.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -to continue these efforts of job creation. My hon. friend has completely overlooked the fact of the very great degree of weakness and the high unemployment in our major export markets. The European community and the United States, for example, are areas that are bound to have an impact on job creation and industrial activity in our country. We are working to strengthen our export efforts and to strengthen job creation and industrial development in our own country. However, we cannot totally escape the impact of policies of other countries in their own markets and therefore on our industries. We are certainly conscious of these concerns and responsibilities, and are working to put in place other initiatives to help deal further with the impact of these matters on our workers.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that the statistics I have used this morning take us only to October 17. In the past three weeks we have had plant closings and lay-offs, putting thousands more people out of work. I can cite Du Pont, Alcan, Admiral and many small manufacturing companies across the country. Those people are no longer interested in the minister's
12592

November 6, 1981
Oral Questions
announcements or in blaming other people. They want to know what the minister and the government are waiting for. When are they going to do something of a practical nature that will help them out?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly not been waiting. We have been taking concrete and positive action that has had a very beneficial effect on job creation and strengthening the industrial base of the country.


Mr. Epp:: Where?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We intend to take further initiatives. I think that my hon. friends should respond with a very positive note to the budget of the Minister of Finance, which is only a few days away.


Mr. Stevens:: What is in it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I look forward to announcements connected with the budget that will help add to the thrust of job creation and industrial development which has been very much a part of this government's action and responsibility over the past 18 months.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, this is the minister in this House of Commons who will say anything but will do nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is it the minister's view that his high interest rate policy is the best policy to combat inflation? Is the minister aware that the high interest rate policy is resulting in the fact that workers at Canadian Admiral will no longer make stoves, refrigerators, washers and dryers, and that Canadians are better out on the streets to fight inflation? Is that his view?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the bank rate declined by more than half a point yesterday. At present, the bank rate is at the lowest level it has been for the past six months.


Charles Joseph Clark: Since you promised to resign.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friend did not mention that in his question, nor did the other spokesman for the official opposition. Therefore there is a very positive movement in the area of interest rates, and I look forward to further progress in this area as well.


Charles Joseph Clark: When are you going to resign?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friend conveniently forgot to mention these initiatives and activities.


CANADIAN ADMIRAL CORPORATION IN RECEIVERSHIP
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the receiver at Canadian Admiral is presently operating a mass quick rapid disposal of the assets of the company? Therefore, unless something is done almost immediately there will be no appliance industry run by Admiral or by any other person who might be able to take over that company. What action does the minister propose to take right now to make sure that the receiver operating on behalf of the bank does not totally disperse the assets of the company and cause a permanent loss of jobs?


Mr. MacKay:: Resign, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with various companies that are developing proposals which could well lead to the resumption of operations at Canadian Admiral. We intend to continue those efforts.


IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURED APPLIANCES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware also that one of the problems at Canadian Admiral and at other appliance dealers is the fact that the Japanese and others are allowed to dump things such as microwave ovens on the Canadian market? What action does the minister propose to take to stop that dumping? Does the minister intend to have the microwave business and the other appliance businesses completely taken over by foreigners in the same way that he allowed the television industry to be taken over by foreigners? Is that his policy? Is that the way he wants to promote trade?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have laws in this country to deal with dumping. If there is a formal accusation, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, will respond very quickly and very effectively.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the previous questions I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. We have noticed over the last few weeks that there are 88,000 fewer jobs available in Canada. Today we see again that over the last month we have had an increase in the unemployment figures. When this session first began the Minister of Finance said that this high unemployment figure was an aberration, that perhaps it was a statistical error. Does the Prime Minister recognize that his
November 6, 1981

government's policy of maintaining high interest rates to stem spending in Canada is the major cause for these high unemployment figures?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is confusing certain issues. By focusing only on the recent increase in unemployment rates he forgets to mention the fact that between October 1980 and October 1981, 170,000 jobs were created in Canada. He also forgets that high interest rates are directly linked to the high rate of inflation we are experiencing, and that it is not the government's task to concentrate on a single issue and on short-term requirements. Its task is to consider all economic indicators and to work towards improving the general state of the economy.


EMPLOYMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let us recognize that when the government talks about the jobs that have been created many of these jobs are recycled ones advertised through Manpower. They are not really new jobs being added to the economy.
My next question is aimed toward the minister responsible for unemployment-excuse me, employment. It seems to me that the government's policy of job creation as recently announced is the shifting of the unemployed from certain parts of Canada toward the megaprojects. Surely this will result in the uprooting and breakdown of families, resulting indirectly in family violence, wife battering, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, and the like.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should put his question on a supplementary.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to agree that this high unemployment results directly in these incredible social costs that will be with us for many decades?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of unemployment is never a pleasant one and this government is very concerned about the measures we can introduce to try to alleviate it and help those who face this situation.
I would like to point out to the House that in the past year, just through the initiatives of our department alone, we have added something like 80,000 jobs which are concentrated particularly in those regions of the country that experience chronic unemployment.
Oral Questions
As far as the movement of Canadians is concerned, that is something that has been part and parcel of the history of this country. Every year some one half million Canadians move to take jobs in other areas. That is really part of the labour market. What we are trying to do is develop, through recommendations of the parliamentary task force and our own task forces, a whole new set of labour and training programs that will respond to the new labour demands of the 1980s. It is the real commitment of this government to address the issue of human resources and the labour market so we can address the kind of problems the hon. member points out as being a consequence of unemployment, and I believe that between the budget and the kinds of programs we are initiating we will be able to provide this country with a very relevant, very useful, and effective labour market strategy in the years to come.


FORESTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my final question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Recognizing that he has taken initiatives on a number of occasions in an effort to assist certain sectors of the country and the economy, will he outline what he plans to do to provide assistance to the ailing British Columbia forest industry that is now experiencing lay-offs on a daily basis, with an unemployment rate for woodworkers in excess of 20 per cent?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have a major program in place to assist the British Columbia forest industry, to develop additional markets in the world aside from the United States. This has had a major, positive impact. As I said in the House the other day, over the past few years it has brought about an increase in exports to other parts of the world from $200 million to close to $1 billion. We are continuing these efforts to assist the industry and to expand its export sales and help all its needs in terms of maintenance of employment in the British Columbia industry.
We are also working with the Department of Employment and Immigration on programs in terms of assisting laid off workers, and we look forward to further efforts to strengthen the base of that industry, despite the decline in major export markets, particularly in the United States, something that unfortunately is not within our direct control.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister responsible for real employ-

November 6, 1981
Oral Questions
ment, that is not unemployment, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The cutbacks in VIA Rail service will cost the Canadian tourist industry at least $100 million in lost business, leading to many bankruptcies and unemployment for thousands of people, including the loss of more than 3,000 tourism-related jobs in western Canada alone because the government is turning away some 30,000 tourists from Japan and other countries.
When his seatmate, the Minister of Transport, decided to dismantle VIA Rail, was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce requested to provide a remedy for the devastating impact this decision would have on the tourist industry and, if so, what remedy does he have? What consolation does he have to offer today to these thousands of newly unemployed Canadians?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is relatively easy to answer that question. Let us take Jasper as an illustration of the situation described by my hon. friend. Last year there were two million visitors to Jasper. The highest estimate of the number of people who came to Jasper by train is provided by his own PC report which says that
100,000	people came by train. That is 5 per cent of the total.
Now, travellers coming from Edmonton will continue to come to Jasper by train. That is a good percentage of the total. People travelling from Vancouver have a possibility now, and I will give an illustration of that, of coming by a combination of trains and buses. For example, from Vancouver-


Charles Joseph Clark: They will take the bus over from Tokyo.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -they can come through the B.C. Railway in Via Tours. A number of them will be coming in that way.
The proof in the pudding is that at the moment VIA informs me that they have a hard time finding the necessary accommodation in Jasper for the number of tourists who will be coming to the area next summer. If that is not a true illustration of the exaggeration put in the question, I do not know what can be.


IMPACT ON ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question of my colleague. Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce devote some of his work to persuade the cabinet that the cancellation of the VIA services in the maritime provinces will not only create direct unemployment but will create a negative impact upon the tourist industry and upon all tourist-related industries? Will he try to persuade the cabinet and the minister to avoid criticism of his government for a further decline in business in the maritime provinces?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise and preamble to my hon. friend's question. We are putting major
projects in place which are directly aimed at job creation in the Atlantic provinces. For example, there is our recent announcement of support for the Saint John Shipbuilding and Drydock Company and the recent Mitel project. Both of these are in New Brunswick. There is also the Ocean Industries program in Nova Scotia. All of these efforts are intended to and will create hundreds, in fact thousands of jobs in the Atlantic provinces.
I think this is a very positive way to build on the strength of that area. This is something we are doing and we intend very much to continue to do.


THE CONSTITUTION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for the status of women my question is for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, Clause 28 of the constitutional resolution is a paramountcy clause outside the charter. I remind him that Clause 28 is the one saying
Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is if he can tell the House whether Clause 28 will continue to have paramountcy. That is, will it override any attempts made to deny equality to women?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I can only answer that my impression is that the clause would continue. I have not been involved in the drafting which went on between provincial and federal officials yesterday afternoon and, I believe, during the night as well.
I cannot answer firmly but I want to tell the hon. member- and this applies also to the Standing Order 43 motion put by the member for Malahat-Cowichan-The Islands-is that we took the draft presented to us by the seven premiers. They had made a lot of deletions from our original draft which is before the House. One of those deletions was precisely the clause concerning aboriginal rights. They are the ones who deleted it. If there was any deletion of the clause that concerns the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: You agreed to it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand. I agreed to a lot of things that were not my first choice, yesterday. That must be understood. I was looking for a consensus, and I got a consensus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the member is finished shaking his fist he can realize that I sought a consensus on the basis of a series of deletions to our charter, the best charter in the world which I believe some of the members over there supported. I accepted a consensus put to me by seven premiers. There were some
November 6, 1981

deletions, and aboriginal rights was one of them. Maybe the other clause was another. I am not sure. I will have to check that, and that is why 1 say I will see what was done on the drafting overnight.
1 cannot conceive how the member from Malahat-Cowi-chan-The Islands could come out with an untruth as enormous as the one he did when he said that Saskatchewan was supporting aboriginal rights and somehow we were not. It is Saskatchewan and the other six that put to us a draft without aboriginal rights. It is in the discussion that ensued that I said I found that difficult to accept, but if they were facing me with this draft could we at least have a federal-provincial conference agreed where we would try to see what the native people agreed to among themselves, assuming they can agree among themselves, and that is far from certain, but I said let us at least give them a chance to meet with us. That is how it happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER QUEBEC PRESENTED ALTERNATIVE FORMULA CONCERNING MOBILITY OF LABOUR
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Considering the agreement on mobility rights signed yesterday by nine first ministers, I should like to know, with respect to the agreement the government of Quebec refused to sign, whether, when the Prime Minister of Canada asked the Premier of Quebec if he had another formula to suggest, the latter produced a formula and made a counterproposal to the other first ministers and to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is also important to answer this question, because there are a number of myths being created about yesterday's meeting. The answer to the hon. member's question is very straightforward. The Premier of Quebec objected to the mobility clause. I told him, "Well, I understand your having some reservations, since Newfoundland had some as well. Newfoundland negotiated some additions to the clause, which we accepted. Do you have anything you would like to add to the clause, Mr. Premier?" He did not and just grumbled about the clause. I asked him to let us know in a matter of hours or days about any other wording that would be satisfactory to him and that we could consider and discuss with the other provinces, if necessary. We have not heard from the Quebec Premier about this matter or about the language question or the other issues on which he is in disagreement, Mr. Speaker. That is the situation for the time being.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. With the help of the Canadian taxpayers the government advanced hundreds of millions of dollars to Massey-Ferguson to maintain that company's operations and the jobs involved. That company turned around and gave dealers volume discounts to sell products. They have done that. The company is now withholding volume discounts. Is the minister willing to allow Massey-Ferguson to continue operations and yet allow our dealers in our small communities to go under this winter?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first of all the government did not advance millions of dollars to Massey Ferguson. It guaranteed the final portion of the equity refinancing carried out by the private sector. This was done pursuant to specific terms and conditions in agreement between ourselves, Massey-Ferguson, and the Ontario government.
I will be very happy to look into what my hon. friend has said and see whether or not it conflicts with the terms of the agreement. I should point out to him that, without our efforts to enable Massey-Ferguson to continue in a new and restructured and more viable manner, there would be no basis for those dealers or for the thousands of workers for Massey-Ferguson, and the thousands more in supplier plants across the country. Let us not forget that the initiative of the federal government has enabled that company-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What are you going to do about the dealers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -to continue to operate, to continue the opportunities for the dealers. I intend to look into the situation and see if it conflicts in any way with the agreement we have entered into with the company.


FISHERIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister will know that Statistics Canada today reported 2,000 jobs disappeared in Newfoundland last month, and 15,000 jobs since last May.
Fifteen fish plants closed down in Newfoundland last summer resulting in a loss of 3,600 jobs. All but three of these plants remain closed. All the minister does is identify the problem. We know what the problem is. The problem is a softening of the United States market and an overprocessing capacity.

November 6, 1981
Oral Questions
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a clear and direct responsibility here. What is he doing to try to gain access for Canadian groundfish to the European market? Without that market the minister knows the situation will remain disastrous.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who knows these things very well, knows that the unemployment figures he talks about in the fisheries area result from two problems. One is that the inshore fishery, for reasons which have nothing to do with markets but have to do with water temperatures and biology, was not successful last summer. It is a cyclical problem and many small plants did not have sufficient supplies to keep operating their normal season.
The second problem, which is a problem of increased inventories, especially on the part of large companies which have large offshore vessels, is one which is somewhat related to interest rates and somewhat related to the slowness of the United States market. To the suggestion the hon. member makes I will ask him a question in return.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Roméo LeBlanc: When the time comes for us to ratify an agreement with the European Common Market, which agreement means that some fish may be caught in the Canadian zone in exchange for markets, will he support me?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka there have been a great many lay-offs, as there have been in many others, and my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In my home village of Burks Falls in my riding one third of the employees of Thompson-Heyland, a lumber firm, have been laid off because of poor lumber sales which are, of course, directly attributable to high interest rates. In light of this and numerous other industry cutbacks and closures which have thrown hundreds of thousands of Canadians out onto the streets I wonder if the minister, who is supposed to be the super salesman for Canada, could tell this House what he plans to do to stem this dangerous tide of unemployment and get industry and the economy rolling again. Let us hope he will tell me this will be dealt with in the budget, and let him make damned sure it is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will agree that the significant drop in the Bank of Canada rate yesterday, a decline of 59 basis points to 17.62 per cent, is a step in the right direction,
especially since this Bank of Canada rate is now at its lowest level in some six months.


Mr. Andre:: Hurrah!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What a laugh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The decline in the economy of our major market for lumber, the United States, is obviously having an impact and, as I said the other day, I hope my hon. friend will not continue pressing for United States and United Kingdom type economic policies to be fully applied in this country. I am glad he confirms that we are looking forward to a budget with a very positive impact on the economy in a few days.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who replies for Statistics Canada, the Minister of Supply and Services. Today, as unemployment statistics are released, the government cannot tell this House how many Indian people are unemployed. Can the minister state why he has not asked Statistics Canada to bring forward this statistic? Is it because it might be so horrendous that it would be embarrassing?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the figures that are tabulated by Statistics Canada do not include populations on Indian reserves. That has been justified in the past because of statistical principles which are employed in the compilation of the statistics that are published today.


Erik Nielsen: Are they any the less people?


Mr. Blais:: The Labour Force Survey cannot take into account the special conditions which affect Indians. As a result of that I have asked my officials to review the information that is available from Indian reserves and the Indian population in order to be able to provide supplementary information which would be of assistance to the government in its policy decisions.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware that the lands directorate of his department has recently published a document entitled "The Agricultural Use of Marginal Lands: A Review and Bibliography-Working Paper No. 13". Reports in the media concerning this document have caused a great deal of consternation in the agricul-
November 6, 1981

tural community in my riding of Timiskaming and, indeed, in northern Ontario.
Could the minister inform the House as to the purpose and nature of this document and whether it is meant to be a statement of government intentions toward the marginal lands, or meant only to assist in preparing policies and programs to expand the agricultural development of these regions?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The document to which he refers is not a policy document. It is a review of available material, and a bibliography document.
The Government of Canada issued, in November, 1980, its land use policy. I will be happy to send a copy of it to my hon. friend. The document to which he refers is simply meant to inform the public further, and more studies will be done by the government to help elaborate a future policy document.


FORESTRY
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. With the alarming increase in unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, the highest in the nation, and the near collapse of the lumber industry which provides a large number of jobs, when will the minister announce the decision of his government to participate in the maritime forestry complex at the University of New Brunswick and thus provide a vital window on badly needed research for the whole forest industry?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware, and I hope other members of the House are aware, that the federal government recently issued its discussion paper on forest policy, giving in very clear terms the direction we believe the industry should take. I hope fairly soon to be able to make some further announcements about how we will achieve the objective we have there described.
The specific question to which the hon. member refers relating to the maritime forestry centre is one which we have under very active consideration. Discussions have been held with the provincial government and also with the Members of Parliament who represent New Brunswick in the House of Commons, and I expect within a fairly short time-I cannot give a specific date-to be able to make some announcement about whether the federal government will be participating and, if we do, to what degree we will be participating.
Oral Questions GRAIN


PROVISION OF HOPPER CARS IN 1982
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister confirm the public statement made by his colleague in the other place, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, on September 28, that he remains confident that the cabinet will be approving an order in the next few days for
1,000	to 1,500 more hopper cars for delivery next year? Could the minister also tell us whether the elusive newly oil-rich western development fund will be the source of the money for these purchases?
Hon Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, in western transportation there are now three problems the government must address. The first one is branch line rehabilitation, and I have already addressed it in a way my hon. friend is familiar with by adding $45 million in the next three years to what was already being done for branch line rehabilitation.
The next problem we have to tackle is the necessity for hopper cars. The third one is the general capacity of the main line. There is no doubt we will address the latter two, the question being only whether we should address them together or separately.
The need for hopper cars is recognized. I have received the views of the transport co-ordinator, Mr. Radke, on this subject. A decision will be made soon. It is just a matter of deciding in what context, either singling the one matter out or putting it together with our consideration of the main line strategy.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who answers for DREE. Cargill Grain made an application to the minister's department for a grant for the construction of an oil seed crushing plant at Melfort. He apparently denied Cargill Grain this grant; this in a province where the population has dropped under our socialist government to the point where we have less population today than we had in the thirties. Could the minister indicate why Cargill Grain was denied this grant, which would have provided employment on a permanent basis, particularly now when there are people in the wood industry who are unemployed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, obviously I will check immediately-
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I received-

November 6, 1981
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. De Bane:: Concerning the application by Cargill regarding a grant, the department has done a thorough assessment of all the factors. Furthermore, I have listened to all the arguments that have been put to me in support of giving a grant. I would be very happy to send my hon. friend a letter expressing all the arguments about why we have come to the conclusion that public assistance for this investment is not absolutely essential.


SHIPBUILDING
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, $700 million worth of Canadian shipbuilding contracts were let to shipyards overseas, to the detriment of Canadian shipyards and jobs in Canada. Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce clarify his confusing answers of earlier this week with respect to a policy to be generated through consultation with the shipbuilding industry, or will the minister continue his current policy resulting in job losses to Canadians?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think I gave quite a straightforward answer the other day when I said that we were developing a new policy for the shipbuilding industry and that we were doing it on the basis of consultation with the shipbuilding industry, the workers in the industry, and the users and potential users of Canadian ships and equipment built in our shipyards. This consultation by a senior interdepartmental working group is almost completed. We anticipate being in a position to have discussions in cabinet before too long based on the results of this consultation.
In the meantime, we have been moving ahead with programs to strengthen our industry. At a ceremony in British Columbia the other day I announced major support for a new drydock for Burrard Yarrows Corporation which would involve some 400 jobs. A few days later in Saint John, New Brunswick, I announced the expansion of a drydock at Saint John Shipbuilding, with support by the federal government of some $12 million. This will also create there some four to five hundred jobs.
These are two initiatives we are taking in this area to strengthen this important industry, along with the putting in place of our program for assuring Canadian workers and Canadian companies of a full, fair and competitive basis with regard to the opportunities in the megaprojects offshore and in the high Arctic. This in itself is a major stimulus, a major source of job creation in the shipbuilding industry and in every industry across Canada. My hon. friends asked about what efforts we are making to create jobs in this country. This program alone is the source and will be the source of thousands of jobs for Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What a contrast with the inaction and failure of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, there exists a desperate situation for the native people in Canada in high unemployment, with record unemployment reaching, in some cases in bands in my area, such as Bigstone, 90 per cent unemployment, the Cold Lake band 85 per cent unemployment, Fort Mackay band 95 per cent unemployment, and Fort Chip band 80 per cent unemployment. My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister demand from his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, that Indian people be included in unemployment statistics, and will the minister make special efforts to see that this problem is addressed?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly be pleased to speak with my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services. I think the hon. member may well be aware that we have had additional new funds in millions of dollars directed across Canada, a good portion of which has gone into Alberta. Money has been spent on an impact study during the course of this summer, with additional allocations to meet economic development, and moneys to create jobs for the Indian people, with particular emphasis in northern Alberta. All of this has been done in the last couple of months. It is certainly a constructive move in the right direction.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On October 30, 1979, when interest rates were some 13 per cent the minister told the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the following-and I want you to listen to this, Sir, because you said it-and I quote:
I want to point out-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: Why did you allow that then?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 6, 1981


Otto John Jelinek: The minister said, and I quote:
I want to point out... that... high interest rate policy would slow down the economy: it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs; it will mean increases in the cost of living ... it will put housing beyond the reach of most middle and lower-income Canadians. It will hurt small business ... it will hurt farmers...
And it will add, therefore, to the cost of food.
Now that interest rates are some 7 per cent higher than at that time, can the minister tell this House whether or not his views today are the same as they were in 1979? Do not give us this boloney that interest rates now went temporarily down by half a percentage point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all concerned about high interest rates. I shall repeat to my hon. friend and to this House that we have had a very positive movement of interest rates over the past several weeks. They are now lower than they have been at any time in the past six months. I think we all look forward to this progress continuing.
My hon. friend has not mentioned anything about the impact of interest rates in the U.S. market, the major source of our Canadian exports, especially the auto industry. The hon. member professes to be interested in the auto industry and yet he supports the kind of policies in the United Kingdom and in the United States that have created a weakness in our economy, corresponding to the weakness in the industries that we are trying to strengthen in this country. My hon. friend should change his policies instead of asking me about mine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the high capacity of tonnage the minister has allowed the trains to carry, and he has not done anything about reducing the hours of work of employees. The operating employees have to work as much as 11 hours under this heavy strain. When will the Minister of Transport bring forward legislation that will reduce the hours of work for these employees?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if I were to do that you and others would find me doing something that is not of my competence, of my jurisdiction. The relationship between employees and employers is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of employees and employers. If I were to do that, I am quite sure everybody else in the House, possibly including the hon. member, would condemn me for it.
___________________________________12599
Oral Questions


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Statistics Canada figures last night confirmed that Prince Edward Island still suffers virtually the worst unemployment problem in the country, including recent mass layoffs of provincial public employees. Is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion working on a program to replace the 15-year P.E.I. comprehensive development plan which terminates soon-it is now in its third and final phase- so as to avoid a complete economic disaster in the province when the plan does terminate?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say to my hon. friend that I think exactly as he does. It is precisely because we are in the last phase of this 15-year comprehensive plan that we have come to the conclusion in cabinet that it would be totally unacceptable that, in three years' time, because the plan would end, there would be a reduction in our commitment to P.E.I. This is why we have taken the decision in cabinet to start immediately, and not in three years' time, to strengthen the federal government's capacity to deliver programs tailored to the needs and potential of this province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, as you will know, it is a scientific fact that as unemployment rates go up, heart attacks go up, alcoholism rates go up, and admissions to mental hospitals go up. I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Laugh about it you idiots. Listen! Listen and learn.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: These are the consequences of the policy promoted by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On behalf of the Canadian people I should like to know if the minister can assure the House that there will be an increase in hospital funding to take care of the health victims of his economic policy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better for the hon.
member to ask for an increase in funding to help the people

November 6, 1981
Oral Questions
who are harmed by the nonsense implied in the hon. member's question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nonsense! You know nothing about what you are doing, Herb.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A small but typical of thousands of examples of unemployment in small businesses is the closing of two restaurants in my riding causing 75 lost jobs, only because the operators simply cannot borrow at current rates to carry them through the marginal winter period. Despite what the minister said about the lowered rate yesterday, this morning in Stratford small borrowers could not benefit from any lowering of interest rates. Does the minister agree with the Minister of Finance who said that the banks are not discharging their responsibilities to small borrowers? If he agrees, what steps is he taking to discharge his responsibility to prevent small business lay-offs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, certainly in this connection if the banks are not reflecting the lowering of the bank rate in the way they are dealing with smaller business, I would certainly associate myself, as I have in the past, with the remarks of the Minister of Finance about the failure of banks to discharge their responsibilities. I will certainly be working with the Minister of Finance on this particular issue.


ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, we have become so accustomed to seeing you in the chair that we have actually referred to you as Madam Speaker. I believe this is the first occasion on which you have handled question period. On behalf of all of us I can say that you have done a first-class job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: My question is directed to the President of the Privy Council and government House leader. Last night, thanks to the good will among House leaders, we were spared the necessity of voting 40 or 50 times. The 225 Members of Parliament who were here thank them for that. The fact of the matter is that it is a mind-stultifying procedure. Would the President of the Privy Council consider referring to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, or setting up a
special committee, to study it, the possibility of an electronic voting system in the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question. I feel it is particularly worthy of consideration, coming from a member who is regularly in the House and is dedicated to improving the parliamentary system and procedures. I can assure him that I will give his question very serious thought and that sometime in the weeks or months to come, we shall look into this important matter with a view to making this Parliament more modern and more efficient.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat reluctant to raise a point of order today for the very reason that this is your first occasion in the chair during question period. However, when something is out of order, it is out of order. Unfortunately, today something was indeed out of order, in my judgment.
Today during motions, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) rose and placed before you a motion under Standing Order 43. As you are aware, the first question put to the House asks for unanimous consent to waive the notice provision. That question was quite properly put to the House. The only obligation on the Chair at that point was to determine whether the Chair heard any dissenting voices. The Chair, in the wisdom of the Chair, did not hear any dissenting voices; therefore the motion was then read to the House. After the motion was read to the House, the Chair asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the motion. I put to you, Sir, that it is quite out of the ordinary and in fact unnecessary to obtain unanimous consent of the House at that point. All that is required at that point is for the Chair to put the motion, and then the motion is debated in the way of all other motions.
The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) rose and claimed that he had refused unanimous consent is irrelevant and therefore cannot be taken into consideration by the Chair once the Chair has decided that it heard no dissenting voices.
I ask the Chair to review this procedure over the course of the weekend to determine whether or not the facts as I have presented them to the Chair-and in fact as they will appear in the "blues", since I have read them-are accurate; whether it is true that there is no need for unanimous consent for the motion to be considered by the House after the request for waiving of notice has been given; and whether in fact there

ought not to have been then an opportunity given to any member of the House to debate the motion.
I realize that one cannot go back into history and have the debate now; I am not asking for that. However, I am asking that the matter be clarified, that it be recognized-and I put it without malice-that in fact there was an error, and that the procedure be clarified for future consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken. The Chair was concerned when the motion was put-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief before you make your ruling. The facts related by the hon. member who raised the point of order are almost accurate. But I am constrained to say that when unanimous consent was sought by the Chair, there indeed was a "no"; I heard it myself.


Ian Deans: That is not the point.


Erik Nielsen: Indeed I should be recorded in Hansard as having heckled across the aisle, "Smith said no"; he heard me. Forgive me for using his name. Indeed there were other noes which I heard over there; there were no noes on this side.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker did not hear any.


Erik Nielsen: But at that point, the hon. member is quite right, there were only two courses to follow-either a debate must arise or the question must be put. Neither course was followed. Perhaps that was an instant oversight on the part of the Chair, but in any event the debate could only have lasted about two and a half minutes because that was all the time left on the clock.


Ian Deans: That is irrelevant. Mr. Speaker, may I rise to comment further on the point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have already heard the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. When the motion was called the Chair at that moment did not hear a "no", but the Chair clearly heard some dissents prior to reading the motion. This creates a problem, and we will certainly review the record. But before the motion was read to the House there were dissents, and it appeared to the Chair at that point that there was not unanimous consent. However, the point of the hon. member is well taken. He put his point courteously. The Chair will review the record. He asked for clarification of procedure which appears to be reasonable; the Chair will defer on the matter.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on another point of order?
Petitions


Ian Deans: I am rising on another point of order which I would like the Chair to consider.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member speaking to the same point of order or to another point of order?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a similar but different point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I should like the Chair to consider whether in any circumstance, having once determined that there is no dissenting voice and having read the motion to the House of Commons, the Chair is then given the option of rehearing what took place previously.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is precisely the same point the hon. member made before. The Chair is quite prepared to review the record and consider the matter.
I repeat, the Chair at first did not hear dissenting voices but did hear dissenting voices prior to the motion being read. Possibly the procedure that was adopted, as the hon. member very correctly points out, should be re-examined and there should be a clarification.
At this point I should like to let the matter rest for the moment.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to lay upon the Table a petition signed by many residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia. The nature of this petition is a protest over the announced government policy on rail cuts. The petitioners join the thousands of Canadians who have already registered their objections to the reduction in rail service announced on July 27 by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
Their purpose is to inform the government of their objections to these policies. These petitioners claim that the cuts are /arranted, that they undermine national unity, and further, that they are contrary to the fuel conservation measures advocated by this Liberal government.
The petitioners hope the government will listen to and act
upon their wishes.

November 6, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to present a petition on behalf of constituents. The nature of this petition is to protest the proposed increase in postal rates. The purpose of the petition is to either cancel the increase or have the government ensure that the quality of service is correspondingly increased.
These petitioners hope that some action will be taken to alleviate this deplorable situation that is beginning to create hardship, especially for senior citizens and others on fixed incomes who suffer the most from the burden of high interest rates and high inflation.

[ Translation]



THE BUDGET


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 60(2) to request that an order of the day be designated for Thursday, November 12, 1981, at 8 p.m., for the purpose of enabling the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to make a budget presentation in the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,344, 2,229, 2,625, 3,010 and 3,147.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many Soviet diplomats, restricted to the confines of the National Capital Region, have asked for special permits to travel in other parts of Canada in the past (a) six months (b) year (c) two years (d) three years (e) five years and what are their names and their position?
2.	How many times did each apply and how many applications were (a) approved (b) rejected?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1 and 2. (a) The information requested has been submitted in reply to question No. 1550 tabled June 25, 1981.
2. (b) When the Soviet government imposed restrictions on the movement of Canadian personnel in the U.S.S.R., the Canadian government, on a reciprocal basis, imposed similar travel restrictions on Soviet personnel in Canada. Staff of the Soviet embassy must give the Department of External Affairs
48 hours' written notice of the intent to travel (24 hours for travel to Mirabel airport and to Montreal). Each such notice is carefully examined by the Canadian authorities. There have been instances of members of the Soviet embassy staff making oral requests which would have been refused on grounds that prescribed procedures had not been followed. There have also been occasions when, because of unsubstantiated Soviet travel refusals for staff of the Canadian embassy in Moscow, the department has, on a reciprocal basis, not permitted Soviet representatives to travel in Canada. It would be contrary to normal diplomatic practice to make a public disclosure of such instances where travel was not allowed.


Mr. Gustafson: Will a payment relating to the Russian embargo on grain be made to the grain producers and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what amount?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: On the date this question was asked, a complete significant answer was not available. Compensation to producers as a result of the partial grain embargo with the U.S.S.R. was announced by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board on June 18, 1981, for a total of $81 million. Payments commenced on September, 1981, and the bulk of the moneys have been mailed to producers.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Employment and Immigration receive a letter dated September 19, 1980, from Mr. D.R. Taylor, then an immigration officer, concerning a three-month relief tour of duty that Mr. Taylor had completed in India and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did Mr. Taylor attach to his letter a report on his temporary duty in India in which he made a number of serious allegations with regard to Canadian immigration activities in India and the people being dealt with there and, if so, what were the allegations?
3.	Did Mr. Taylor receive a reply to his letter and (a) if so, on what date and what was the reply (b) if not, does the minister intend to give Mr. Taylor a reply to the allegations?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. No, but a letter dated September 10, 1980 was received on September 15, 1980.
2.	A report was attached to Mr. Taylor's letter reflecting his personal views of certain provisions of the Immigration Act and regulations. He also commented on certain practices, procedures and difficulties that are encountered by our officers in India when processing applicants wishing to come to Canada.
3.	No, (a) N/A. (b) No. The minister regularly receives letters from employees expressing their views on various policies, practices and procedures. These letters are noted by the minister and referred to the appropriate officials for review and necessary action. This procedure was followed with Mr. Taylor's submission.

November 6, 1981


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Will the government give immediate consideration to permitting licensed pharmacists to act as guarantors for passport application purposes?
2.	Did the government receive such a request from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the nature of the government's reply (c) does the government intend to grant the request and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. The eligible passport guarantor list is regularly reviewed and the present list is considered sufficient to meet the needs of the Canadian public.
2. (a) The Department of External Affairs received requests from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association dated December 5, 1980 and May 15, 1981. (b) & (c) The department's reply of December 24, 1980, stated that it was the experience of the Passport Office that the present list of guarantors meets the needs of the travelling public. The association was also provided with a copy of the paper on "Passport Guarantor Policy" which was distributed to all Members of Parliament on December 9, 1980. This paper explains in detail the guarantor system and the reasons underlying the policy. In reply to the association's second request, it was again stated that the current guarantor list adequately meets both the needs of the travelling public and the Passport Office.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 2,791 which stated in part that Hesson and White Printers Ltd. of Kingston received the sum of $3,264.55 to print 20,000 pamphlets for the St. Lawrence Islands National Park (a) what are all reasons that this firm received the contract (b) were any other firms allowed to bid on the printing and, if not, for what reason (c) for what reason was the printing not awarded to a printing firm in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville where most of the park is located?


John (Moody) Roberts: (a) Hewson and White Printing (Kingston) Ltd.* submitted the lowest bid for the project.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	The lowest bid for the project was not received from a firm within the constituency of Leeds-Grenville.
The name of the firm $yas incorrectly given as Hesson and White Printers Ltd. in the answer to part 4 (a) of question No. 2,791.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the fact that question No. 2,042 has been on the Order Paper since January 29 and has not been answered. As it deals with the total cost of the Prime Minister's December-January world tour and the percentage of those costs that was paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, I think it is an affront to this Parliament that for ten months we have been denied that knowledge.
Labour Adjustment Benefits


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the representations made by the hon. member.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. A couple of weeks ago I drew to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that question No. 2,035 dated January 27 has not yet been answered, and that question No. 2,519 dated May 21 has not been answered. Both of these questions concern the cost of air flights using DND aircraft. One of them concerned the Prime Minister and the other concerned DND jet aircraft.
We have heard assurances before from the parliamentary secretary that he will look into this but nothing ever happens. This is exacerbated by an answer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Appolloni) to a written question about two weeks ago from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) which said that answers to these questions and requests for information would be provided in October, 1981. Mr. Speaker, October has gone by and they are still not answered. Will this game go on for years or will the government bring in some kind of Draconian system instead of carrying out this charade every second Friday?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will make further inquiries with regard to these matters.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the second reading of Bill C-78 designed to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. The bill reflects Labour Canada's participation in the $350 million Industry and Labour Adjustment Program announced in January 1981 by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), the Minister of Employment and

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and my predecessor, the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan). As most hon. members are already aware, the various aspects of the program being proposed in this bill are aimed at facilitating labour adjustment by increasing the responsibility of employers and government with respect to displaced employees. They also provide for increased participation of employees in the process of deciding on provisions for adjustment in case of lay-off.

The major features of this bill-authority to provide early retirement pensions to employees who are unable to obtain alternative employment; an innovative process for dealing fairly with mass terminations; and improvement in severance pay provisions-flow from measures already existing and from recent extensive consultations with business and unions, as well as from the unanimous report of a tripartite commission of inquiry headed by Professor Carrothers. The report was handed down in late 1979.
The early retirement program has been in operation for several years in the clothing industry, the textile industry and the footwear industry, based upon the authority of a previous Appropriation Act. This bill will permit the immediate extension of early retirement benefits to qualified persons in the communities of Windsor, Tracy-Sorel, Port Cartier, Sept Isles, Schefferville and Sydney, N.S., and to industries which have been, or are to be, designated under the industrial and labour adjustments program.
As the House is aware, some 500 persons are being assisted by the current program. While it is very regrettable when a firm in a vulnerable industry closes its doors or is forced to reduce its operations and persons are left without employment, the array of measures available under government programs- job creation, job finding, mobility, training and so forth- coupled with early retirement as a last resort, go a long way toward helping the affected worker. There are several communities where textile and clothing firms have folded under international trading pressures or economic circumstances and employees have found themselves jobless.
In most cases other government programs have been able to provide alternative employment in short order, but for those who cannot move, cannot find something else or cannot be retrained, at least at that point in time, the early retirement benefit is a measure which maintains income in a manner consistent with human dignity. At the same time, the government does not simply leave the person there unaided. Efforts continue to help the worker find other permanent employment or to create the necessary jobs.
Consider the case of a recent lay-off involving 52 people in a large textile plant in Drummondville. All the people laid off were over 54 years of age and, therefore, eligible for assistance under the former federal adjustment program. It helped people bridge the gap until such time as they found other employment or were eligible for pensions.
Now, an older worker who finds himself without a job through no fault of his own after working ten years in, say, an auto firm, who has exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits and yet is not eligible for pensions, will be able to call upon the labour adjustment benefits program for assistance.
The innovative process for dealing fairly with mass terminations stems from the provisions already in the Canada Labour Code requiring adequate notice to be given; but notice is not enough. As members will be aware, there have been several cases in the last couple of years where firms closed, leaving employees high and dry without termination benefits-severance pay, pension rights and buy-out of equity in their jobs. The result has been that employees engaged in strike action sometimes had virtually to occupy the plant in order to force justice out of their erstwhile employers.
This bill will require employers in the federal jurisdiction to negotiate a fair termination settlement package with their displaced employees or union. May I remind hon. members that the federal jurisdiction encompasses railways, trucking, shipping, banking, grain handling and other national infrastructure industries. It will provide that, in the absence of agreement, a third party will make a final and binding decision that will eliminate the necessity for employees to engage in desperate measures of "industrial action" in order to uphold their rights.
The measure we are proposing today is something unique in Canada and probably in North America at this point. I believe it will bring justice to persons caught up in mass terminations caused by economic and technological change. Enlightened and socially responsible employers are already pursuing this kind of process when forced to curtail operations.
I believe this bill is sound, desirable and in the interest of Canadian workers, and I urge members on all sides of this House to support it.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I am very pleased to be able to speak to this bill. In particular, because of its being introduced by an old friend and colleague, I would like to congratulate the new minister on his first bill in this House.
When the matter goes to committee, we on this side of the House will be asking some questions and proposing some changes of a technical nature, particularly relating to appointments and some other matters. Also in committee we will be raising the question of coverage. I am sure it is no surprise to the minister that this bill will not have a very good effect with respect to classes of workers that he has in mind who are women. By the very nature of their jobs and employment record over the last 20 years, women will not find the same kind of coverage as male workers.
Let me state clearly it is not a responsibility of the minister in that regard, but it is something to which he may want to give further consideration. There is a clause of the bill which allows for greater flexibility by the board in certain cases. The minister may want to give some consideration to expansion of that clause so that it clearly states the board will be able to
November 6, 1981

deal more equitably with regard to women workers in the work force.
My comments today are going to deal primarily with the problem that the bill is intended to deal with, not in the past but in the future. With great respect to my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), this bill looks at what the problem has been and is right now. It does very little to deal with what is increasingly a very fast growing scene with respect to employment, unemployment and job creation in this country.
It is interesting that the bill should be dealt with today when the unemployment and job-creation statistics came from Statistics Canada. It is worth referring to the unemployment problem and the job problem in this country. This bill is a fairly puny attempt at trying to deal with what the minister is pleased to call an assault on technological change in this country.	-
The unemployment rate in this country is now at 8.3 per cent. That means that on a seasonally adjusted basis we now have, as recorded up to October 17, 989,000 Canadians out of work. If I just left it there, it would be an awesome enough figure for members on all sides to consider when looking at the specific individual misery that causes. However, if I look at it a little more closely, I see that it affects particular groups even more so. Unfortunately, these groups are not covered in any significant way by the bill. The hardest hit group are young people between the ages of 15 and 24. This month alone there are 32,000 people in this age group who are unemployed and have lost their jobs in one month's time. There are 99,000 fewer jobs than in June 1981 for this group, and 44 per cent, almost half, of the 989,000 unemployed are between the ages of 15 and 24.
It is indeed a terrible thing at an advanced age to find yourself unemployed because it speaks to how you feel about yourself and your family, how they feel about you, your standing in the community and your sense of worth. It is a different experience but just as miserable for a person who is just starting out to find that one of every two who looks for a job will not find one.
That is the situation the government has us in today. Putting aside those people between the ages of 15 and 24 looking at geographic reasons, the province of Quebec lost 9,000 jobs last month alone. Unemployment in the province of Quebec is now at 11.5 per cent. That is the highest unemployment rate for that province in modern times. Of those entering the labour force over the past year, 44 per cent were unable to find a job. One further statistic shows that 132,000 fewer people are working today compared to this times last year.
In spite of comments being made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), about job creation, the reality is in fact the reverse. Unemployment has risen and job creation has fallen. Those are the facts. All the words from
Labour Adjustment Benefits
ministers of the Crown will not change that reality for the Canadians who are suffering.
We agree that this bill should have been brought forward some time ago. But for those people who are in their fifties who will be laid off as a consequence of a depressed industry, and looking at the total situation with respect to employment opportunities in this country, this bill is indeed far, far too late. It is neither very strong nor very effective for the great majority of the people who will be affected.
The minister also spoke of technological change. I wish he had not said that because he at least shows that his department has some nodding acquaintance that we have been in a technological revolution for some time. It is that technological revolution which the minister is not taking into account in this bill.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Transportation.


David Edward Crombie: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) yells "transportation". We have been trying to tell the minister for some weeks now that a revolution has been going on, and the revolution is about him and his policies with respect to VIA Rail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: The only revolution that might help is if he were put in another job so we could have someone else who would begin listening to Canadians who are concerned with the revolution that has been taking place in transportation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are wrong.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer some thoughts today to the minister and his department with respect to this bill. Both he and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have certainly demonstrated no action with respect to placing this country in a position of competitiveness in the face of technological change and they have spent precious little time on it. For the past 20 years the minister's colleagues have been putting their heads in the sand about what is going on in this world concerning technological change. That is the reason the minister brought this bill forward.
We are in the midst of a revolution of scientific, economic and technological dimensions which will change forever the work place in Canada. Our productivity and competitiveness as a nation and our relations with one another as human beings will be changed. Let me use one example of that change which is already about us. I think of robots because that is perhaps the most dramatic and obvious example, particularly if one thinks of their utilization in factories. Already in the world there are robots that can paint cars, command milling machines, weld auto parts, hoist turbine blades, pack candies, wash windows, and in Australia robots shear sheep.
We must remember that robots never go on strike, they never call in sick, they work double shifts without complaint, they never file insurance claims or go on vacations and they

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
work well in hostile environments. There are approximately
15,000	robots in Japan, approximately 4,000 in the United States and approximately 5,000 in Germany. There are precious few in Canada. But more importantly, when those changes come, and come they will, the best the government can do with respect to technological change is to deal only with those people who are in industries that are being depressed by government policies and only those people who are in their mid-fifties. That help is needed but it shows that the government is totally ill equipped to deal with the technological change that is coming upon this country.
The growth and development of the Canadian economy in the 1980s, the 1990s and into the twenty-first century will require a fundamental change in our educational opportunities, our scientific research, our technology and technological education and in our human resources development. Specifically as a nation we will need to develop policies that will take us in those directions.
Education, for example, is a provincial responsibility. It is also a national concern. It was announced by the Minister of Finance and then I think denounced by another minister the other day that this government would cut $1.5 billion out of the established programs financing in federal aid to education. That act alone shows that the government has no understanding of the role educational institutions have to play in relation to technological change so that we will not have the unemployed people the Minister of Labour is trying to protect. Educational institutions depend fundamentally on federal aid. Forty-five per cent of the operating costs of universities in this country is provided by the federal government. If the Minister of Finance has his way, educational institutions will find themselves in very great difficulty. That difficulty will further expand the already terrible situation for young people who are between the ages of 15 and 24 years, among whom already almost one out of every two are without jobs.
We should begin to provide leadership, and I hope that the federal government will offer leadership in this regard, although I do not see anything that tells me that the federal government will do so, in co-operation with the provinces, regarding the equalization of educational opportunity in this country. We need to ensure the existence of world class institutions of advanced education in particular fields. We need support for world class programs in research, both basic and applied. We have to ensure high-level technology training to develop people with world class skills and abilities. We have to provide support for unique and fundamentally important resources, such as archives, museums, rare books and scholarship programs.
When I hear the minister talk about attempting to deal with technological change, and when I hear his colleagues talk about their concerns with respect to policies of cutting back on aid to education, it shows me again that the government will not take us into the future but back to 1960. This country has to equip itself for the 1980s, the 1990s and the twenty-first century. The policies which the government is proposing will not bring us the excellence we need. Indeed, these policies will
maintain the mediocrity which the government has imposed when it comes to research and development in Canada.
The bill itself, as I indicated earlier, is one which we will deal with in committee in terms of its specifics. I indicated that one of the specifics was that of the problems women face in the work force. The difficulty is that the regulations imposed by the legislation are such that most women, given the fact that many are regarded as playing an important role in raising children within the household, together with the kinds of jobs they have been forced into over the last number of years, will not have work opportunities. This is a problem in respect of which I hope the minister will take us into his confidence in committee so that we can see whether he is willing to expand that section which deals with the discretion the board will have.
The matter I dealt with a moment ago with respect to technological change is one with which I am hoping the Minister of Labour will be able to deal. The Minister of Employment and Immigration so far has failed to do anything of a significant nature for us. Clearly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce likes to talk only about announcing programs without putting them into effect. The Minister of Labour has a unique opportunity because, as a new minister, he can carve out new opportunities and grounds in relation to his own responsibility. This is clearly a situation where responsibility is going from one minister to another, and for very good reason. I think the new minister may be able to do something the former minister could not.
When the new minister is dealing with his colleagues he may want to look again at policy with respect to the established programs financing. I dwell on this because the established programs financing, which was established in 1977, as the minister may recall, was to allow flexibility in programs for provincial administration while at the same time putting a cap on committed federal government expenditures. That was the result of a request, interestingly enough, made by the federal government.
Up until 1977 federal aid to education, hospital insurance and medical care was handled on a cost-share basis. That was not acceptable to the federal government because it wished to have some control over its expenditures, and it was becoming increasingly unacceptable to the provinces because they found themselves having to live within criteria they did not want as established by the federal government. Both sides decided in 1977 that it was of mutual benefit to make a change in the way in which moneys flowed from the federal government to the provinces.
That change came about in 1977 under what was called established programs financing. What it established was that under those programs in education, hospital insurance and medical care the provinces would get a lump sum of money or a block fund, an amount to be determined by the relationship of the province to the increase in the gross national product.
November 6, 1981

I emphasize this because the government in the past two years, certainly in the last year and a half, rather than dealing with our real problems has sought to blame the provinces for not carrying out what this government was pleased to call the provinces' responsibilities with respect to education and medical care.
The fact of the matter is that it was the federal government that asked for the change. Any reading of the words of the then minister responsible, who is now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and indeed, a reading of a speech of the Prime Minister of the time, will show they extolled the virtues of the established programs financing because it gave the very flexibility for which they now condemn the provincial governments.
I am one who is interested in having the provinces of this country contribute more in the field of education. We need not less money from the federal government for education, research and development, but more. There are a number of sins this government has committed over the past ten years in respect of education for which it will have to fess up. One of the things it will have to make sure it discontinues is blaming the provinces without putting up the money and the leadership.
Every educational institution, every corporation interested in on-the-job training, every province that is interested in apprenticeship training and every school that is interested in technical training is looking for leadership. This is not the kind of leadership that means the federal government collects the money, spends the money and therefore controls it centrally. The great difficulty we have had so far with this government is that every time it contributes money it thinks it ought to control the policies relating to it. That is not the way our federalism works. I have noted in the past few days that a number of people have begun to understand how the federal system actually does work, and that is why so many of us were pleased the other night. One of the things this government ought to remember is that although the parochialists may be bad, the centralizers are just as bad.
When it comes to providing money for employment, research and development and education, this is done best at a local level. Small and medium-size business in this country create more than half the jobs, and the important relationship between small and medium-size businesses is their relationship to the municipalities, the regions and the provinces in which they exist. If the federal government thinks that by the power of the purse it is going to create educational programs for this country, it is wrong. That is not the kind of leadership the country needs. The leadership must come as a result of a co-operative endeavour between the provinces and the federal government. The existing council of ministers of education needs to be expanded. I might say that two parliamentary committees have already reported and have attempted to make sure that the federal government, first of all, does not cut out the $1.5 billion federal aid to education, and second, that the federal government understands that in its endeavours its leadership is required to make sure local areas are getting the funds. It must provide the leadership to make sure that the
Labour Adjustment Benefits
provinces, regions, municipalities and local areas are able to work with small and medium-size businesses in their own areas.
I continue to emphasize leadership because we have had so little from the federal government in this field for so long. That is why many other countries which we previously regarded as being behind us in the technological field, in education, in productivity, in competitiveness and in standard of living, are now ahead of us. They are ahead of us because we constantly see bills from this government dealing with real problems that could have been solved earlier.


An hon. Member:: Why not solved by the provinces?


David Edward Crombie: My hon. friend asks why not by the provinces. In the three years I have been here I have heard minister after minister on the government side, except for a nine-month period, constantly state that our problems are the fault of somebody else. I have heard them blame the provinces and world conditions. All other countries live in the same world, yet we have gone from second place in terms of competitiveness and standard of living to somewhere around fourteenth. The fact of the matter is that the federal government has allowed this country to forget that we established our standard of living in this twentieth century through a belief in the validity of science and the ability of human beings to acquire research and development techniques to exploit science for economic development. That is the kernel of what we are talking about.
When the minister talks about technological change, all he is talking about is what we were involved in many years ago. That is, the realization that the only way in which we progress in this world in economic development is through science, research and development and on-the-job training. All of that has been lost.
In 1951, the Massey commission advised the government of that time that its role in economic development, particularly related to technical and technological education, was not only important but crucial. That was 30 years ago. In 1951, the Massey commission said that the federal government must continue the same aid which it had provided in the 1940s during the war, and late in the 1940s for employment rehabilitation for people who came back from overseas.
In 1940, this country took its first step as a federal government in the field of technological education. It expanded and intensified it during the 1940s. In 1951 when Mr. Massey recommended it be expanded again, we did so for about three years.
Interestingly enough, I offer this as a non-partisan thought, which it is. It expanded again in 1958, 1959 and 1960, when federal aid was expanded to technical and technological institutions in this country. It closed down again in the mid-1960s and it has become worse throughout the 1970s, a whole decade. There has been no fresh program for a whole decade, indeed no fresh thought by the Liberal governments we have

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
had, on how we move the country back into international competitiveness, with excellence rather than mediocrity in our research and development as our major criteria.


Mr. Caccia:: Come on!


David Edward Crombie: The minister says "Come on", Mr. Speaker. I would have to say that he knows it to be true. In fact, the minister knows in another incarnation when he was involved in a training school of his own in Toronto how hard it was to get any support from the federal government.


Charles L. Caccia: Provincial government.


David Edward Crombie: From the federal government. He used to tell me about how he might get some help. That is the truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker.
There are a number of matters which I could elaborate on with respect to the specifics of this bill. As I mentioned, I will be dealing with them in committee, as will other members. At this point I shall simply let another colleague address this bill. I know there are a number of members in our party who are concerned that the bill simply shows that again the federal government is looking at problems it created ten years ago and not to the future.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, members of our party look upon any proposal to create a labour adjustment assistance program as one which will only have any real merit or relevance if it is part of a planned objective and policy which takes into account the needs of workers in a particular industry. It will only work when we have as our objective the establishment of the principle that every person in this country who wants to work is able to find a job.
It is interesting-coincidental, of course-that the minister brings forth this bill on the same day that Statistics Canada produces the grim report that approximately 989,000 Canadians are unemployed. That means 8.2 per cent of the work force across this country are out of work. The minister should remember that that figure of 989,000 is not the factual figure. The real figure is substantially higher, probably 1,300,000 who are unemployed. The reason the figure is higher-and this was mentioned during question period today-is that the figures calculated by Statistics Canada do not include the tens of thousands of native people living on reserves where the unemployment rate is anywhere from 60 per cent to 90 per cent for a good part of the year. It does not include the tens of thousands of people in slow growth areas such as Atlantic Canada, the Gaspe Peninsula and certain parts of Manitoba where jobs are so few that thousands of people who want work have simply given up looking. Of course, if they do not look for work, they are not counted among those unemployed.


Mr. Young:: The disabled also.


David Orlikow: My colleague from Beaches in Toronto mentions the disabled.
I was a member of the parliamentary task force on Employment for the '80s which looked at the prospects for employment for approximately the next ten years. The task force, which was made up of four members from the Liberal Party, two Conservative members and myself from the New Democratic Party, studied the question of employment and listened to people from one end of the country to the other, people at the grass roots level. We considered the problems of unemployment, why there was unemployment, and then gave consideration to the question of full employment.
I do not do this often, but I want to put on record a few sections of that report. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because it is not unusual for members of this House to hear members of our party, including myself, say that it is not only possible but imperative that we adopt policies that would permit every person in Canada who wants to work to be gainfully employed.
Here we have a report signed and supported, but for a couple of very small reservations, by the two Conservative members and approved by the four Liberal members which deals specifically with the whole question of full employment, without which I think what the minister is bringing forward today is really an exercise in futility. In saying that I am being very charitable to the minister.
Let me now put on the record a few paragraphs from this report:
Task force members did not accept that there was no solution to the present trade-offs between high unemployment on the one hand and high inflation on the other. They felt that human ingenuity and political will should provide better solutions.
The Liberal members agreed to that. It then goes on to quote from a white paper on employment and income issued in 1945 by a Liberal government. That report said:
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. It has been made clear that, if it is to be achieved, the endeavour to achieve it must pervade all government economic policy. It must be wholeheartedly accepted by all economic groups and organizations as a great national objective, transcending in importance all sectional and group interests.
If there is one group that seems to have forgotten that important recommendation of the white paper, it is the Liberal government of 1981 which is ignoring the advice of the Liberal government of 1945.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, and pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
November 6, 1981
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, just before we terminated the debate at one o'clock I put on the record the central principle of the white paper tabled just after World War II by that most eminent Liberal cabinet minister of the day, C. D. Howe, which was that that Liberal government committed itself to work toward full employment. When it was established, the Economic Council set its goal in its first annual report in 1964. With regard to employment the report said, and I quote:
-a calculation of the possible,... a target to be aimed at,... not the highest level of attainment under the best of all possible circumstances, but rather an indicator of productive capabilities under reasonable expectations of performance.
With this in mind the council projected that a 97 per cent rate of employment, or a 3 per cent rate of unemployment in the labour force, would be a realistic objective.
For a number of years between the mid-1960s and 1967 we actually had an unemployment rate of just 3.8 per cent. However, in the 1970s that 3 per cent target disappeared. Indeed, when the Liberal government passed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1971, it based its legislation on the principle that the average unemployment would be 4 per cent and that over the 4 per cent rate the government would pick up the deficits which would be created in payments of unemployment insurance benefits.
In recent years the government seems to have moved away from earlier ideas about full employment. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has suggested that there is full employment when we have 7 per cent or 8 per cent unemployment. In the budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) introduced in November of 1980 he projected-and accepted-an unemployment rate in excess of 8 per cent for the first five years of the 1980s. I point out that this is double the 4 per cent rate the government found acceptable in 1971.
Given these facts and the fact I pointed out when I began my speech, that the official rate of unemployment accepted by Statistics Canada-which, if anything, underestimates the amount of unemployment we have-is now 8.4 per cent, the task force which, as I pointed out, had a majority of members who were Liberals and was chaired by a former cabinet minister, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), said in connection with the question of full employment-I just want to put this last paragraph on the record:
Canada needs an industrial strategy that will put people to work, and a government determined to achieve this goal must set goals for lowering unemployment. This strategy should aim to achieve full employment, which the task force considers to be 4 per cent unemployment. Government policy should be designed to meet this goal as soon as possible.
One can see how far the policies adopted by the government are from the objective set out by that task force in which Liberal members were very heavily involved.
What we have in the bill proposed by the minister today is supposedly an adjustment assistance program, but it is a program which excludes nearly all the people who lose their jobs. I will not go into the details now. Some of my colleagues will follow in the debate a little later, but the program excludes people who have worked less than ten years and
Labour Adjustment Benefits
people who are not yet in their fifties. I am sure that if the bill were in effect now, virtually none of the 2,000 people who received their lay-off notices yesterday when the Admiral Corporation closed down would have been eligible for assistance.
We reject this very picayune approach of the government. We believe that an adjustment program, as I said earlier, must be part of a strategy designed to give employment to all those who want to work. If people are unemployed, then the adjustment program, along with the other programs we have such as unemployment insurance, must assure assistance to people laid off through no fault of their own, to a large extent because of the mistaken economic policies of the government and the high interest rate policies adopted by this government which have created situations where there are no sales for the companies for which they work.
With interest rates at 20 per cent for housing mortgages, it is not surprising that tens of thousands of workers in the forest industry are unemployed. And with housing sales plummeting to near zero, it is not surprising that Canadian citizens are not buying appliances. That is the reason the Admiral Corporation had no customers for its product. It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the automobile industry is in such dire straits.
Given that situation, what does the minister propose in the bill? First to qualify you must be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, have been laid off as a result of non-cyclical factors, the total lay-off must equal 10 per cent of employees or 50 employees. You must also have been employed for 10 years out of the past 15 years in the industry, be 54 to 65 years of age, exhausted you unemployment insurance benefits and have no prospects for employment or are able to find only a low paying job.
What the government's objective was when it drafted this bill, Mr. Speaker, was to find ways to exclude as many people as it could, rather than design a bill that would include as many people as possible who need protection because they have been laid off.
It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that various groups of people, groups like the Canadian Labour Congress, individual unions and people in academic positions, people concerned about the welfare of their fellow Canadians, not only think this bill is totally inadequate but have drafted or have started to draft real alternatives that would help such people.
For more than a year, Mr. Speaker, I have worked on a private member's bill that would deal with the question of plant closures or cutbacks and with the plight of people who are laid off. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is almost ready. As far as I am concerned, it is ready but it has to be approved by the legal experts of the House of Commons. As soon as it is, I intend to introduce it.
My bill, unlike this bill, Mr. Speaker, will go a long way to mitigate the serious consequences of lay-offs. My bill includes appropriate time frames for notices of termination, which this bill does not deal with. I start with the principle that it is not

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
acceptable that an employer can decide in a day, week, or month's notice that the business shall close and that his employees who have worked for many years will be thrown on the breadline or will have to depend on unemployment insurance. I do not believe that one or two weeks' notice or even one day's notice is enough. This occurs too frequently. I believe such short notices give the employees little, if any, opportunity to prepare for and to obtain new employment.
I know the minister knows that what I am proposing in this bill is close to what the organizations, such as the Canadian Labour Congress, have proposed. I am suggesting that employers be required to give 26 weeks' notice to the employees when they are terminating their work, where there are less than 50 employees involved, and 52 weeks' notice where there are 50 or more employees who will be laid off.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: I am suggesting in all instances of temporary lay-offs that the employer be required to give one month's notice and continue to pay all benefits, such as health insurance, pension and so on, contracted by the employees with the employer for the duration of the lay-off. Too many employees find themselves in difficulty where they are laid off for one, two or three months and cannot make up the benefits they have lost during that period.
Where the duration of unemployment is lengthy, I am suggesting that the employee should receive at least one week's severance pay for each year of service, and that pensions should be made more portable than they have up until now. Thousands of employees in this country lose the benefits of those pensions they have contributed to because the companies they work for do not work for them and the employees have to seek other employment whereby their pensions are not portable. I propose that pension contributions be placed in a central pension agency until retirement of the affected employees, or until the employees become a member of another plan. The funds would then be transferred to a new plan.
Where the duration of employment with employees is the result of the introduction of new equipment, I am suggesting that a labour-management committee be set up, consisting of an equal number of members from labour and management, to monitor the production of the new equipment, procedures and problems associated with the same. I suggest to the minister that if that kind of board had been set up in the post office, we would have avoided the difficulties we had over the last ten years because the employees would have had assurances and guarantees that the automation installed in the post office would not displace them from the jobs they held.
Mass terminations obviously create the greatest social and economic hardship and dislocation. Therefore, a permanent job protection board should be established to investigate employment terminations involving 50 or more employees and all permanent business closures. The board should also be permitted to investigate terminations of employment involving less than 50 employees when it is warranted. The business involved would be compelled to provide market and financial
information as required by the board and the board would have all the powers included in the Inquiries Act so as to ensure that the workers are not mistreated for reasons beyond their control. I suggest the board would make recommendations as to whether terminations are justified and what actions and remedies are required. These recommendations would be submitted to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) at least 90 days before the closing date set out in the termination notice.
The minister would then make orders, based on the board's recommendations, to reduce the impact of the employment terminations on the employees and communities. These orders would be made at least 60 days prior to the closing date set out in the termination notice.
I could continue, Mr. Speaker, but I think other members are interested in this subject because we are talking about the way of life of a large number of people, many of whom have worked for companies for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years and suddenly find themselves at the age of 40, 45, 50 or 55 where they have lost their jobs and are not able to find another job at all, or only find unskilled jobs or jobs that pay little more than the minimum wage.
If hon. members were to compare the kind of proposal that I am suggesting with the proposals contained in this bill, I think that those who look at it with a partial eye will see there is virtually nothing in the bill proposed by the government to give real protection to the workers.
As a matter of fact, it is interesting to note that the benefits which will be paid under the provisions of this bill to the few workers who might qualify will be even less than those paid to workers who have been laid off and are receiving compensation under the provisions of the bill we passed which gave some form of help to workers in the textile and clothing industry. Rather than the government improving and expanding the kind of legislation which began in the textile industry and the kind of legislation which at one time helped auto workers with transitional assistance benefits-and we need to improve them today given the fact that unemployment has risen so dramatically compared with what it was five or ten years ago-the government is cutting back on the meagre programs started a few years ago.
That being the situation, it is the intention of hon. members of the New Democratic Party to speak out and campaign as vigorously as we can against the half-baked, milquetoast proposal before us today and to vote against Bill C-78.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased at being able to take part in the debate on Bill C-78 now before the House, a bill announcing the implementation of the industrial and labour adjustment program. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), I wish to congratulate
November 6, 1981

the minister for insisting on having this bill passed as soon as possible, particularly in view of the present economic situation. It is the minister's first bill in the House. It is a good bill which will considerably improve the quality of benefits already being granted by the government to workers affected by employment slowdowns in a given sector.
Mr. Speaker, last January at a press conference in Sorel, Quebec, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) announced to hundreds of shipyard workers who had been affected by a considerable work slowdown that the federal government would help them by setting up a special industrial and labour adjustment program with a $350 million budget. Four other regions also designated on this occasion were Port-Cartier, Sept-Ues, Sydney, N.S. and Windsor. Mr. Speaker, the announcement could not have been made at a more appropriate time, because in my constituency, which is just opposite Sorel on the North Shore of the St. Lawrence, several hundred people work in the shipyards and their job situation has been seriously affected by lay-offs. And, Mr. Speaker, in other municipalities in the riding of Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Lanaudiere which I represent, the formerly flourishing textile industry was seriously affected by the slump in this sector and by the fact that a number of companies, including Associated Textiles of Canada Limited in Louiseville, which had over 600 employees, many of whom with more than 35 years' service, had to close down. This was quite a shock to the people in the area. I am very pleased that the government followed one of my recommendations by reducing the preretirement age from 54 to 50 for workers with 30 years' service in the same industry.
The various sections of the program provided under Bill C-78 are aimed at reducing the negative impact of the adjustment on wages, by increasing the responsibility of employers and government in this respect. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the section of the act which sets at 50 the age requirement for pre-retirement applied retroactively, so as to cover under this act all workers who have lost their jobs in situations similar to the one I have just described, workers with more than 30 years' service and who were unable to receive preretirement pension benefits because they were not 54 years old at the time.
The labour adjustment benefits act is designed to make effective programs and policies aimed at helping employees to adjust to structural change by increasing the responsibility of both employers and government regarding workers affected by the adjustment. The act consists of two main parts: The first part, the labour adjustment benefits program, will provide pre-retirement benefits to older workers with a number of years of experience in the activity sectors affected by structural change. The second part of the act consists of amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code and will increase the rights of workers affected by collective lay-offs in activity sectors under federal jurisdiction. Both parts come under the $350 million Industry and Labour Adjustment Program
Labour Adjustment Benefits
announced by the government on January 19, 1981. Under the program, once the bill is passed, pre-retirement benefits will be paid to workers in designated communities. According to this bill, adjustment benefits already paid to workers in some industries under existing programs of adjustment benefits will continue to be paid.
Mr. Speaker, the program of adjustment benefits is aimed at providing, as a last resort, some financial assistance to older workers who have been laid-off in designated industries and who do not meet the requirements of other programs for a greater use of manpower. The industries involved are those where imports could give rise to a strong competition or those which are encouraged by the government through its programs and policies to undertake an industrial restructuring. In case of economic pressures, the cabinet could also designate industries in some special geographic areas. Those adjustment benefits granted on the basis of areas come under a program of assistance for the adjustment of industry and manpower announced in January 1981. Moreover, the program provides for the establishment of a Labour Adjustment Review Board to confirm the eligibility of certified workers to benefits. Indidivual applications will be processed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. This program is a substitute for programs of adjustment benefits made available by the Department of Labour to workers in the textile, clothing and footwear industries.
To be eligible for benefits the employee will have to get the Labour Adjustment Review Board to confirm that he has been laid off; in other words, it must be certified that the lay-offs involve an establishment which belongs to a designated industry and affect 10 per cent of the manpower or 50 workers of the establishment, whichever is the lesser. The board must also be convinced that the lay-offs stem from a serious economic upheaval in the industry. To be entitled to labour adjustment benefits, Mr. Speaker, the applicant must be at least 54 but under 65 at the time of the lay-off, have exhausted all his unemployment insurance benefits, have at least ten years' employment in the industry in the 15 years immediately preceding the lay-off, be a Canadian citizen residing in Canada or a permanent resident, and have received from the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission a certificate attesting that the applicant has absolutely no employment opportunities or holds a job for which he is not paid as much as he was in his previous employment in the industry. Special attention might be paid to people aged 50 or over with 30 years of service in the industry at the time of the lay-off. Mr. Speaker, this is where I will ask that, if possible, this clause of the bill be made retroactive to the beginning of this program. The entitlement of workers to the labour adjustment benefits will be reviewed regularly by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. The benefits are equal to 60 per cent of the average insurable earnings before the lay-off. For 1981, the maximum insurable earnings prescribed under the Unemployment Insurance Act stand at $315-week, therefore

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
the maximum labour adjustment benefits is $189 a week. They are reduced by 60 cents for each $1 of income from employment while the worker is registered under the program, and $1 for each $1 of income from another government transfer payment or from employment preceding the benefit period. The benefits will be indexed once a year to the cost of living.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the labour adjustment benefits act is mostly to provide last resort financial assistance to older workers who have been definitely laid off in designated industries and who do not meet the requirements for more active labour use programs. These industries are those where imports can create strong competition or those for which the government has incentive programs. In cases of serious economic pressures, the Cabinet can also designate, as I noted earlier, industries in specific geographic areas. These regional adjustment benefits are part of the industry and labour adjustment program.
The act also provides for the creation of a labour adjustment review board to certify the entitlement to benefits of laid-off workers. Individual claims are processed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. Within a maximum limit provided by the act, a claimant can receive benefits equal to about 60 per cent of his average salary before his lay-off. The act currently covers adjustment benefit programs offered by the Department of Labour to the workers of the textile, clothing and footwear industries.
The proposed amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code aim at reducing the impact of termination of employment. The workers affected will be entitled to severance pay after one year of employment rather than five as is now the case. The employee will continue to receive two days wages for each completed year of employment. However, a minimum of five days wages will be provided and the maximum of 40 days wages now in effect will no longer apply. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when the lay-off list includes 50 or more employees, the employer will have to give a 16 weeks notice and to establish a management-labour committee whose members will be responsible for developing a plan to minimize the impact of termination of employment. Under certain provisions, the minister will be able to appoint an arbitrator to settle disputes during the planning stage. If both parties are bound by a collective agreement which sets down the procedure to follow in the case of a mass lay-off, the employer will be exempted from having to establish the planning committee. Finally, the minister can waive the obligation of providing a notice or of having consultations when he is convinced that there already exists an orderly plan for termination of employment. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is of major interest to our workers and I hope that the House will give it the required support to ensure its speedy passage.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this particular bill although it is not one to which I would normally turn my attention. In the past I have worked with the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and with what you might call more management oriented interests. Things have now reached the point where a properly trained labour supply has to become an integral part of management interests. It is an interest of government, of course.
Because of the developing nature of world industry we are faced with massive changes. For instance, in the petrochemical industry and other industries in this country we are dealing with world-scale plans. It is not only in that sector that one gets this massive type of installation but in the automobile industry, the farm machine industry, the textile, furniture and footwear industries. With the concentration of production in bigger and bigger operations, negative movements or events which force the closure of any particular plant will obviously mean massive lay-offs.
I think all of us will accept that the social impact of massive lay-offs in a community is not debatable. We all realize how difficult they are. One cannot say that a person who has taken employment with a particular firm in a particular industry has an inherent right to that job in the labour stream for life. There is no such thing as the acquired right to any particular job. There is movement in the labour force. After all, if the worker says that he or she has an acquired right to any particular job, then the employer in return may say there is also a required responsibility to furnish his or her labour in that particular industry. I am sure that not one person in this assembly would say that the worker should not be free, if he or she decides for one reason or another, capricious or otherwise, in a free country such as ours and indeed in a good part of the world, to withdraw their services and work elsewhere. There is a quid pro quo.
In the last five years in Canada, particularly in the furniture, textile and footwear industries in central Canada, this has become a problem although it may have been around a little longer than that. It is a particularly difficult situation in one industry towns as is the case in so much of rural Quebec and rural Ontario. A family business may have grown and been operated successfully, employing several hundred people. Then, for some reason or other, such as a change in technology or an obsolescent plant, the family-operated business is bought out by interests foreign to that community. This may just have meant a larger concern from elsewhere in Canada was buying up a branch in order to consolidate.
One of the reasons for the sale of family businesses in Quebec and Ontario was the almost predatory appetite of the provincial departments of finance to impose confiscatory death duties. There was no way that a family could face the death of the head of the family and the head of the business without having arranged the sale of the business beforehand in order to have the available cash to pay the death duties. The family
November 6, 1981

could not possibly arrange the financing. It sold to the highest bidder simply to put the principal owner of the industry in a position to deal with that day when the government's succession duty or estate duty people descended upon the family fortune. Therefore, we got these lay-offs.
Today the problem is much greater. We have announcements by Massey-Ferguson and the various automobile companies that they are laying off this or that number of employees. In many instances it is a permanent lay-off, not just a temporary reduction while liquidating inventory. It involves the closing of a plant.
How do we protect the workers in that situation? First, there must be between the federal and provincial governments some kind of retraining scheme made available to younger workers. Second, there should be the possibility of a transfer of workers to other plants or concerns in that industry. Third, with repetitive type of work which mechanization in industry has produced, you get premature aging manifested in many ways and encouragement toward earlier retirement of an individual.
It may be asked who is going to pay the cost. Let us look at society itself. I will use the example of a person who has reached age 55 and cannot work. The alternative to putting that person on a reasonable pension and keeping him or her in the home, true enough on a somewhat lesser scale than prior to the closure, unfortunately is simply to let that person fend for himself or herself until they fall on public assistance. Then the cost becomes entirely that of the public. The cost, not only financially but socially, of that person having been prematurely tossed on the scrapheap is far greater than arranging earlier retirement.
It is the same in business. An executive at the age of 60 may not be up to full production. He can cause more damage in either arriving at a decision or making a bad decision or decisions than what it would cost for that individual to retire early. He could be told that it is time he stepped aside, that someone younger and more able should take on the responsibility of the job. The company could tell him what they are prepared to pay him and the individual would have to arrange things beyond that. He could do something that interests him or something more in keeping with his diminished capabilities. It is a fact of life one has to meet.
When this bill was drafted, it was in the light of information on economic conditions that have long passed from viability. We said earlier that we would give this bill quick and enthusiastic passage. That is not so. My colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), indicated that conditions are such that during the past year this government has almost been mesmerized with patriation of the Constitution. There is no doubt that from October of last year until now this government has been preoccupied with non-economic conditions. The net result is that we have inflation running higher than ever, interest rates higher than ever before and 890,000 unemployed. This bill is a reflection of that limited thinking.
Labour Adjustment Benefits
My colleagues and I want to see this bill receive close attention in committee. There are several members who wish to address remarks to it because they believe it is much more important than hitherto. Provincial governments will have to pay much greater attention to this problem. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) will have to get together with their provincial counterparts to better plan for and provide training.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I heard that mechanical bellow from the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). It is amazing how there is always a knee-jerk reaction from that area.


Mr. Benjamin:: It's socialism.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We see socialism. We have the whole of the British automobile industry in a socialized enterprise going on strike because the workers want everything. They are not interested in the continuation of the industry. The industry is inefficient. We see more and more industries being run by labour or socialized which should never be socialized. The record speaks for itself. It stinks. We will just lay that canard to rest right away.
I want to propose better training. A short time ago we had an industry and management task force study the work force that will be required with the fantastic expansion of the electronics industry, with all communications carried out by computers. It was the unanimous conclusion that the present work force and the young work force involved in these communications will have to be retrained. We will have to have a revolution in training methods leading up to employment.
We will have to do the same thing with much of our conventional industry that must acquire recruits. Why is it that we cannot get any skilled tradesmen and craftsmen in Alberta for love nor money? Money cannot buy them. The training programs are such that young people who have not been motivated the right way are not prepared to spend their time learning a trade. People are not prepared to transfer from other parts of Canada in the large numbers that are needed. People own homes where they are and, if they move, to whom can they sell them?
There is definite immobility, except in the absolute socialist heaven where worker number one is moved to place number 101 and the worker who is at place 102 is moved back to being worker number two. Everyone becomes a tool of the state. That is true socialism. One cannot expect a person just to pick up and move today because there has to be a job at the end of the line. That is not enough. There are many other factors. But the error has been with our provincial departments of education both at the secondary and the advanced level. The department of manpower has to share the blame. Then, of course, there is the cockeyed unwillingness to admit that persons who have trained abroad will be as well trained as persons here.

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
There is difficulty in getting equivalent certificates, even between provinces. For instance, the bricklayer from Britain has a great deal of difficulty getting accreditation here in Canada. The carpenter from Austria or Germany is not admitted as a certified craftsman. Then there are the plasterers, the tile setters and all of those tradespeople who know that these trades were not developed here.
Therefore, these are artificial barriers to the movement of the trained personnel we need. All of this is part and parcel of the philosophy of this bill. To simply say that we will set up some sort of bureaucracy or compensation board with officials, and all that the individual worker will have to do is to make application in a certified industry, is not good enough. The worker is not protected if the industry is not a certified or designated industry. Perhaps there would be a provision that there shall be 50 persons laid off or 10 per cent, whichever is the lesser, but certainly there has to be a floor; otherwise a person who loses his or her job for one reason or another could go running to this compensation board and say: "Here, I have been laid off; I want the state to support, compensate or retrain me, but at public expense".
That should not be part of it at all. I suggest that the problem highlighted by the objective of this particular bill is contributed to by a number of causes. First is the improper training of our young work force. Second is the non-existence of facilities for retraining workers. Can those people who maintain they have some connection with the work force tell me which provinces have adequate training facilities for adult workers to retrain sufficiently to meet standards set up in other provinces, enabling the worker, either male or female, to get a job in a field where their labour is required?
How many provinces are set up that way? How many trade unions have participated in that type of planning? How many trade unions would permit the retraining and introduction of workers without insisting they go through an extensive apprenticeship program, apprenticeship programs open only to 16 or 17-year-olds? An area in which there is great difficulty today is the retraining of workers and an acceptance of retrained workers in new industries, particularly if they are organized from institutions such as the Alberta Vocational Retraining School. Why cannot these people be accepted as fully trained and accredited workers without going through prehistoric and impossible apprenticeship plans? Those are the problems we face.
What about those provinces which have sort of down-home legislation which says local workers only need apply. Whether trained or otherwise matters not. If there are not trained workers, it still does not matter. It is a dog in a manger situation. There should be the ability to move from one end of Canada to the other if one so desires. But that is not possible.
How many new industries would have been able to get started in this country without help from outside? What about the people from Saskatchewan who went to work in the Alberta oil industry, the Americans who came to Alberta when Canada did not have any oil workers of its own? What about pipeline welders? There was a time when there was not a
welder in any province who could touch a pipeline. We talk about building pipelines here and there across the country. Most of the provinces do not have standards even for pipeline welders. That is how far behind in history the provinces are. They are behind in their planning, engaging in restrictive thinking all the time. At the same time these self-same provinces are the ones that impose restrictions on the movement of workers from other provinces who are qualified to do a particular job.
This bill is a palliative. It is the ultimate solution for those people who cannot be accommodated through retraining. I would much rather see a worker retrained and replaced in a productive job than become the subject of benefits under this particular bill. This may not meet the views of certain members, but Mr. Speaker, I come from an area where employers are denied workers. They advertise nationally and through the Canada Manpower employment service. There is absolutely zilch in return, or the few occupants are either has-been's, incompetents, rub-a-dubs or what have you who cannot hold the job or perform. Then when we want to get some people from the Orient or Europe who are qualified, we are told no, and it takes a year to process a worker coming from abroad. Those people are highly trained, often far better trained than our people. They are motivated and make responsible citizens. Gracious me, my grandparents, and possibly the grandparents of half the people now in this chamber, came to this country under similar circumstances.
To let somebody come into this country today from abroad is nonsense, according to the Department of Employment and Immigration as well as to a lot of other sectors. We have many people who are institutionally unemployed. This is built in through unemployment insurance, welfare and inadequate training. There is no possibility of employing them in the skilled trades where they are required. First, there are no schools for them to attend if they wanted to be retrained and, second, many would not want to move.
What happens? The employer in the area where the workers are required faces inadequate production with a resulting loss, and everything becomes more costly, yet there are thousands upon thousands of people who want to work if given a chance and if there were adequate training facilities for them. If that were the case, I think we could see some possibility of reaching the day when the Canadian work force could respond to our needs. According to the figures, there is a work force surplus of 890,000. That figure is artificially stimulated by other factors. Many of those people are not genuinely out of work, and there are hundreds of thousands of jobs available in the country. These people either cannot get to those jobs or they could not perform them even if they wanted to. That is one of the hard facts of life. It is regrettable that we have so many people who would like to work but cannot because they are not trained to do the work that is available.
November 6, 1981

We will hear much more discussion about this bill, and certainly this party will want to see substantial improvements in it in committee before it receives the approval of the House.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take just a few moments, if I may, to address some comments on this bill. There are those who have spoken before me, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and the hon. member who spoke immediately before me, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who would castigate this bill almost in its entirety. I have great difficulty in agreeing with them particularly as in my riding which is adjacent to the Windsor area which has enjoyed the designation spoken of, there are people who commute to Windsor to work there and who are currently enjoying the benefits of this particular measure. They come to see me and tell me that it is of definite benefit to them.


An hon. Member:: Try that on in western Canada.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I suggest the hon. member should just listen a little longer. As beautiful as the rose may be, I suggest that it has a number of blemishes I would like to see removed.
The fact that geographic designation is permitted or required by this legislation and the ILAP legislation, in my view, builds in some structural difficulties that will have to be corrected. This is one of the reasons why I wanted to speak for a few minutes today.
I indicated that my riding is adjacent to the city of Windsor and its environs which enjoy designation. The fact is that by that designation some several millions of dollars can be made available to industries which want to relocate in the Windsor area, making work available for those persons who have been disrupted by reason of the automotive industry's downturn. The fact is that by geographic accident those communities which find themselves outside the designated areas and yet are providing work for people who have been laid off now find themselves competing for additional funding with which to attract new industry.
Let me give you an example. The town of Kingsville, located 35 kilometres outside the designated area of Windsor, has a number of parts industries located in it. They have suffered, as have many other small communities around the area, because of the loss of markets in the automotive industry, and many people have in fact been laid off. While the downturn was taking place, the mothers and fathers in the community, recognizing that something was coming in terms of the automotive industry, attempted to provide industrial parks. They brought people from abroad as well as from other parts of Canada attempting in this way to attract potential industry by communicating to them the benefits of locating in the town of Kingsville. They now find themselves competing with the industrial commission for Essex County and Windsor not on an even footing because an additional tool has been given to the designated community which they do not have. In my view that puts them at a disadvantage, and the minister will know I
Labour Adjustment Benefits
have attempted to make that point with him and his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), under whom ILAP comes.
Contrary to arguing, as those who have spoken before me have done, that the program is wrong and, because it does not do all things for all people, it should be thrown out, I would suggest that it needs modification to enlarge the designated areas or, at the very least, to include those persons working in a designated industry who find themselves dislocated, regardless of where they are located geographically.
We find that what results is a silly arrangement under which persons from the city of Toronto who, because they work in and choose to commute to Windsor, find themselves designated in the industry and entitled to the benefits. However, a person from my riding who attempts to find work next door in a related parts industry providing parts for the plant that has cut production in Windsor, and does not travel in order to cut back on his travelling costs, being only 35 kilometres from the downturned designated area, finds himself not designated and not entitled to these kinds of benefits.
I think the program is good but I think it is unfair when looked at in terms of those kinds of circumstances. What we have to do is to modify the program to take care of the circumstances I have talked of so that it follows more closely the spirit of this bill and removes some of the blemishes, as I described them, that I am able to perceive from having experienced them.
The principle is correct. Undoubtedly, we have many Canadians over the age of 55 who are working in a particular industry experiencing an economic downturn and who will never be able in practice to find other employment. I do not think there is any member in the House who would not want to assist those people. They are not the kind of people whom the hon. member for Edmonton West described as no-gooders, bums and what-have-you. These are people who have worked for 30 and 40 years only to find themselves caught in circumstances out of which they cannot extricate themselves. I would not expect the hon. member to suggest that people in those circumstances should not be given assistance. Indeed, I would hope that he would join me in saying that we should do as much as possible to assist them.
I believe that is what the minister is trying to do through this bill. All I am inviting the minister to do is to try to do a little more for those whom I have described to him, people who, because of the way the bill is drafted, are excluded from receiving any benefits under the provisions in this bill. If it can be done either here or at the committee, I will be overjoyed. If we cannot do it, I have used this opportunity to advise the minister that even if the rose is beautiful, there are some blemishes on it that we should try to clear up.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have an opportunity to engage in this debate
today although it is rather ironic that the government should

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
have chosen to bring forth this long overdue and much needed remedy to the problem now. It is a time when unemployment figures have reached a peak not exceeded since 1978. Again, almost a million Canadians are unemployed. Thirty-eight thousand more young people are unemployed in Canada this year than were a year ago. In light of the recent decisions by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), which are going to compound the problem of unemployment, some of the numbers we have seen reported by Statistics Canada perhaps include the 1,600 additional VIA Rail employees who are also going to be on the unemployment rolls in consequence of the minister's regrettable decision.
I want to talk about what it feels like to be living in one of the home towns in Canada where much heartbreak is being experienced-I am referring to home towns like McAdam Junction, Plaster Rock, Chipman, Lachute, Mont Laurier, Senneterre, Blue River, and Clearwater, perhaps places many of us have never heard of or visited, towns like Watrous, Melville, Unity, Wainwright, Havelock, Hornepayne and Drumheller which is my home town. Many people in those towns are heartbroken, and this feeling will come to a peak in about a week from now if the Minister of Transport succeeds in doing yet again what this government is so good at doing, which is destroying the employment opportunity in this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How long is it since you used the train?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Bill C-78 although needed, is inadequate, as pointed out this afternoon by other members. It is a reaction to a serious problem in Canada but it is not a solution. The problem has been made progressively worse during the past 18 months as we have waited patiently and persistently for the long-promised industrial policy of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). He has been promising this to the people of Canada for far too many months now.
The government seems far too successful in compounding this serious problem rather than resolving it. Although I am pleased to see the Minister of Transport in the House today, I would prefer if he were out talking to some of the people whom I intend to quote this afternoon. Some of these people are VIA employees, some make their living from the tourism business in the various small communities, the home towns of Canada which are in a way dependent on the railway system and the rail passenger system in particular.
The Minister of Transport has broken a trust with these people. They are now faced with the spectre of upheaval, displacement, disappointment, anxiety, anger and lack of direction. When a person, particularly after the age of 50, having given many years of his life to the service of his country, or a 63-year-old widow to whom I will refer again in a few moments, sees his or her life suddenly disrupted because of the actions of the minister, it gives them cause to be depressed, anxious, angry and disappointed.
I would like to tell the Minister of Transport what we heard when we were in Kamloops from a Mrs. Jane Lamont, a widow for several years now who is 63 years of age and is
partly incapacitated due to a medical problem. She has been operating a little store along the CNR tracks in Blue River, some 200 miles north of Kamloops.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I heard her on the radio.


Thomas Edward Siddon: She makes her livelihood from that small store, Mr. Speaker. She asked those of us on the VIA Rail task force to carry a special message back to the Minister of Transport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I heard her on the radio. You do not have to.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He may well have heard it. I hope he will hear it again.
Mrs. Lamont said very quietly, in an appeal to the compassion of the Minister of Transport, that she feels very humble-
I am quoting Mrs. Lamont-in asking him to give her back something she needs. Mrs. Lamont takes in $200 or $300 a day from the passengers on the Supercontinental who get off the train in that small little station to buy candy or treats for their children, or perhaps a curio in her small store. One third of her business, which brings her only enough to make the difference between paying for the necessities of her life or not paying for them, is derived from the stops of that train. After next Sunday, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lamont will no longer have a business. All I can say to the Minister of Transport is, shame, shame.
Mr. St. Clair Hull spoke to our task force in Halifax. He is an employee of the railways and has worked hard for this country on both the Atlantic Limited and the Ocean.


Antonio Yanakis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary rises on a point of order.


Antonio Yanakis: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that, departing from the custom of the House, the hon. member is not dealing with Bill C-78 which is now before the House. He is using his time criticizing VIA Rail, which has absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-78.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This is rather clear. The Chair was waiting to see whether the hon. member's remarks could in any way be connected with the bill under consideration; therefore I should invite the hon. member to limit his remarks to Bill C-78. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta has the floor.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I think if we refer to the bill before us, Bill C-78, we will find that it deals with the means of assistance for people beyond the age of 50 who have made their careers in various ways in this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not VIA Rail.
November 6, 1981


Thomas Edward Siddon: It does not deal specifically with certain problems that I would wish to address at this time. If we look at Clause 10 of the-


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not the VIA Rail program. Thirty million dollars worth of it-


Thomas Edward Siddon: I wish the Minister of Transport would withhold his comments until his opportunity to speak arrives.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I wish he would speak on the subject.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Clause 10 of this bill provides for special assistance for employees beyond the age of 50, provided they happen to be part of what is called a designated industry within a designated area of Canada.
I intend to deal with one area of Canada which should be designated under the provisions of this bill. That area is Jasper, Alberta. The tourist industry in Jasper, Alberta has been virtually decimated by the decisions the minister has taken, which will cost that community over $6 million in lost revenue. It will eliminate the possibility for at least 20,000 tourists from Japan alone coming to Canada to visit Jasper and our Rocky Mountains.
There are many aspects of this bill which pertain to the regrettable decisions the Minister of Transport has taken. I am dealing at this point with the needs of people beyond the age of 50 whose livelihoods may have been affected because of a decision taken by the Government of Canada which, if we look at Clause 3(2)(a) of the bill, may well result in a general and significant economic readjustment occurring in a particular industry, that being the tourist and railway industry, by reason of industrial restructuring implemented pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada. To encourage such restructuring, this bill provides for remission. One of the points I am trying to make this afternoon is that if the Minister of Transport and the Government of Canada feel committed to the provisions of this bill, they had better start considering the need to extend these provisions to the massive unemployment their policies are producing in many industries, including the railway industry.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Where have you been?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I would like to return to the point I was raising before I was so rudely interrupted.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Total ignorance.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The point dealt with long-serving employees of the Canadian Railways who, I presume, would be eligible for the assistance and compensation set out in this bill.
Mr. St. Clair Hull, who worked on the Atlantic and the Ocean, says that the Minister of Transport is taking his livelihood away. Mr. St. Clair Hull was talking from his heart about his job, his future and his life. He was in the food and beverage business for 25 years and opted as a career choice
Labour Adjustment Benefits
some three years ago to work with VIA Rail as one of the new VIA employees. He wanted our task force to learn how the cutback decisions affected him as an individual, and this is quite pertinent to the bill because we are dealing with people beyond the age of 50 who suddenly find one morning when they wake up that they do not have a job. This gentleman says that it now takes an extra effort to go to work each morning. The morale is gone among VIA Rail employees. It is hard for him to smile at a customer and to feel, if he does smile, that it is genuine and comes from his heart. This gentleman said that the attitude taken by the government and the minister seems to be: "Well, we are okay; you are not okay; but so what, what can we do?" At the same time, he cannot understand why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) jets around the world and cabinet ministers jet to Winnipeg in three parallel flights while his job is being taken away by an action of the Minister of Transport.
This man said something else which reflects the serious sickness in our employment sector today and the reason why we have a lack of productivity in this country; that is, we think small in this country. We do not think big. He asked this rhetorical question: "How could we increase business in VIA Rail to make a net profit?" The answer was, by volume sales, by expanding business and by advertising and promoting, not by hiding it away from the people of Canada and trying to dismantle the system.
This gentleman, a VIA employee, also said that if the employees had the money VIA is paying the railways to grind their rails because of the excess wear and tear caused by unit trains, essentially a subsidy to the national railways and taking money out of the pockets of our people in tourism and working on the railways, that if the employees had some of that money the government is paying to the railways by paper passing-
[ Translation]


Mr. Bujold:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the debate a second time this afternoon, but I suggest my hon. colleague's remarks have nothing whatsoever to do with the bill which is before the House. I certainly do not see why he should waste the precious time of the House criticizing the VIA Rail scheme instead of dealing with this important piece of legislation. I submit, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you should call the hon. member to order and restrict him to the point of the bill now before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sure all hon. members understand that it is very difficult to follow the rules of relevancy unless we have the co-operation of all members of the House. A member might speak at quite some length and may not sound as if he were referring to the bill, and I think the most the Chair can do is to invite hon. members to observe the rules of relevancy. The rules I try to apply are hon. members' own rules. As I read it, the bill before us is to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. I invite the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) to indicate to the

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
Chair how his remarks relate to the bill. That is all the Chair can do.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do not have the pertinent Beauchesne citation before me, but if Your Honour refers to Beauchesne, I think you will find that under our rules, at second reading of a bill a member is entitled to speak about the principle of the bill and not its details. That gives him some considerable latitude and gives the Chair considerable latitude in interpreting the rule of relevancy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair did not stop the hon. member from speaking. I invited him to indicate to the Chair how his remarks relate to the bill. Even at second reading we do have to speak about the legislation before the House, so I invite the hon. member to do so.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to apologize for the extent to which I am explaining the problems which confront the people of Canada who are going to lose their careers and their livelihood as a consequence of regrettable decisions taken by the Government of Canada. I have detected a strong sense of concern and anxiety, and perhaps even regret, on the part of hon. members opposite that I should have to rise today and use the time of my intervention dealing with a very important labour problem in this country.
I intend to continue, and I trust that the time taken by the two hon. members opposite who have interrupted my speech will be deducted from the time of their speeches and not from mine.
What I said at the beginning of my speech was that the provisions in Bill C-78 are but a reaction to a problem, and if we do not begin to address the causes of the problems which confront young Canadians, older Canadians, women and widows in their sixties, then I do not know what we are here to do in this House.
In Halifax, Nova Scotia we learned from the director of the Annapolis Basin Tourist Council that the Government of Canada has spent thousands of dollars through DREE grants to promote tourism in the Annapolis Royal area of western Nova Scotia. The government spent thousands of dollars to promote new tourist initiatives, including a series of bed and breakfast operations and circle tours which VIA Rail sponsored, and all that money will be wasted because of the dastardly decision of the Minister of Transport which will eliminate those ten tours and eliminate business opportunities for hundreds of people in the Annapolis Valley area of Nova Scotia.
We also learned, both in Atlantic Canada and western Canada, that the trains which are to be cut-the Transcontinental train, the Atlantic and the Ocean-are filled to capacity. We learned about 52 passengers being left on the platform in Montreal because the trains were inadequate this year. We learned from the chief ticket agent in Saint John, New Brunswick, that in every month but one of the past 12-month period the revenues paid to VIA Rail and the number of passengers
carried have increased from the corresponding months of a year ago.
We learned from train porters that there are people sleeping on the floors, congestion getting to dining cars, people sleeping in the bar cars and an oversubscription of space on sleeping cars virtually every day during the summer months. We learned that Canadians will not be able to get space next year on the only remaining western transcontinental train because the government intends to cut if from 20 cars per train to 13. We learned that there will only be 50 sleeping cars available because much of the older rolling stock is to be cut up and scrapped, and I have yet to hear the minister deny that in this House. The minister has the gall to tell us, as he did during Question Period today, that the poor people who want to travel to Jasper, Alberta to continue to support the important economy there should go on the British Columbia railway, which does not even have any comfortable rolling stock for passengers, and the railway line is in serious need of repair. Or, the minister said, these passengers could travel on the Canadian, bearing in mind there will only be 13 cars and no sleeping car accommodation and travelling through the congested area-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I understand very well the concern of the hon. member for the future of the employees concerned, but now he is dealing with passengers, and I do not think that relates to the bill. 1 invite the hon. member to address his remarks to the bill.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that there will be further unemployment next year because the minister does indeed intend to make it so difficult to travel on VIA Rail in western Canada that people will not bother to come. That is a very important point. We learned in Vancouver from several Japanese tourist organizers, that Japanese tourists to the tune of some 50,000 a year visit western Canada and that next year at least 20,000 tourists will not come to Canada. This is very relevant to the employment issue, Mr. Speaker, because those 20,000 Japanese tourists spend upwards of $40 million in Canada. Statistics Canada figures show that every one of them spent on the average at least $2,000 in Canada during their seven to ten days stay here. The spending of $40 million, Mr. Speaker, is directly related to the jobs of four to five thousand people in various travel industry-related businesses in western Canada. The minister has offered no form of compensation and has given no consideration to the impact of this decision on those businesses.
Over 1.1 million jobs in Canada are associated with the tourism industry. As a result of the VIA Rail cutbacks, at least
6,000	of those jobs will be lost. We may only assume that some 2 to 3 per cent of the tourists who travel in this country travel by train, and indeed they do, Mr. Speaker. In travel associated businesses, 6,000 of those jobs will be lost. It is not merely a matter of some 1,600 direct employees of VIA Rail who will be affected, Mr. Speaker. There will be a loss of $6 million to Jasper, Alberta, and $40 million in Japanese tourism spending alone, and almost $100 million in total tourism spending in
November 6, 1981

this country. At an average salary of $20,000, the loss amounts to 5,000 jobs. We cannot ignore that in this House because the statistics that will appear in the year-end returns a year from now will indicate that the government will have to provide for additional unemployed people. In fact, the minister already brags about his $30 million labour assistance program, Mr. Speaker. He will give back $30 million to take these 50 and 55-year-old trainmen and railway employees and put them out to pasture, when they would prefer to be working in the job they have known as a career for as long as many of them can remember.
What I have presented to the House today, Mr. Speaker, is relevant indeed. When we peruse the provisions of Bill C-78 and we learn that the minister, by order in council, will be able to declare certain areas as designated areas, certain industries as designated industries, then I find it regrettable that he has not chosen, in the expectation that this bill will pass, to meet and discuss with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the need to study this problem of an adverse impact on those people who make their livelihood in the tourism industry or to provide some means of remission, whether it be by the provisions of this bill or by some other means. I am talking about the four rental car operators in Jasper, Alberta, three of whom will not be in business next year. I am also referring to those who work in hotels and restaurants and promote ski package tours, and the people who operate fishing camps, people who operate the whole myriad of services to tourists in this country. They are totally ignored and disregarded.
1 see the Minister of Transport has left. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bocks-tael) will listen because 1 challenge the minister to tell this House to what extent he will provide for people like Mrs. June Lamont, a 63-year-old widow, and hundreds of other heartbroken people living in the small towns across Canada who will wake up after next weekend to find themselves unemployed.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak in support of Bill C-78 because I think it is an innovative and sensitive bill. The bill focuses on a group of people who are forgotten in this particular era. The people affected are between the ages of 54 and 65. Having worked with these people and having been responsible for the care of many of the workmen in this particular age group, I have found them to be a very special and vulnerable group at work and in society. They are people who have committed themselves to long hours of work and who have done so with great expertise and dedication. But in that particular period of their lives, age creeps up quietly upon them. It does it in a way that is difficult to perceive. It is difficult to attribute a certain weakness of health that goes with advancing years to any illness. This is something that is inherited and that deteriorates and makes their bodies more vulnerable to the work they do. There are no set rules or any real understanding of that process. It is a process that is present in each and every one of us and that manifests itself very insidiously and in a way that is difficult to attribute to any particular factor. Often these same people do repetitive work. They perform work that
Labour Adjustment Benefits
appears not to be traumatic or that would ordinarily cause any defects or trauma to the body. But regardless of what work you perform, if you do it repetitively and continuously over a long period of time, evidence of some wear and tear and deterioration starts to appear. I am sure if we were to study the vocal chords of a good percentage of the hon. members, we would find very definite changes. If we were to study another part of their anatomy, we would find that prolonged sitting has an effect on the vascular system in that particular part of their bodies. This happens to every individual who does repetitive work.
These changes, that are so difficult to identify readily, lead to some deterioration in the physical fitness of that person, so that he is no longer able to compete in his work world with younger people. In time these people imperceptibly become disabled-although they are not ready to admit it-but they cannot submit claims to the Workmen's Compensation Board. As a result of their dedication over the years, they have reached the stage where they can no longer compete with the industrial world.
I feel this bill is focused on that particular group of people. It is one of the first pieces of legislation where attention has been directed to them and their plight understood.
I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who indicated that many of these people should not be considered as requiring benefits, but provision should be made to retrain them in other aspects of the work. Their expertise should be utilized in apprenticeship programs. They could be a model to young workmen. A concentrated effort to use their talents should be made.
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) remarked on the use of robots. Again I see no real criticism of that. Time and again robots and machinery of that sort are used in areas that are unliveable, areas where people would have to work under conditions where there is a high concentration of chemicals and where repetitive activity adds to the rapid deterioration of certain tissues. I think robots fulfil the need in that particular field. It must be remembered that working with robots requires the acquisition of new skills for the new technology. The maintenance of these structures come into play. If they were utilized intelligently and prudently, they would add to the safety and comfort of the worker. But again a price must be paid, and that price is that some jobs will be lost in a particular way.
I want to conclude by referring to a statement which was once made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which he indicated that the Liberal government does not worship either productivity or growth; it works for the people. I believe this bill is eminently consistent with that philosophy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it was
interesting to listen to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau)
remark that the Liberal Party works for the people. Having

November 6, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits two years of experience in the House, I can certainly attest to the fact that the Liberal Party speaks about people and acts as if it cared about people, but when it comes down to the practical crunch of what it does for people, I have to conclude that it does more to harm people than it does to help them. Of that I am absolutely convinced.
I stood in the House earlier today during question period. I think my question was relevant to the bill before us. This piece of legislation proposed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) is supposed to help Canadians who are laid off. Perhaps it behooves us to identify these Canadians. To a large extent they are men or women who have provided loyal, productive service to an employer for an extended period of time. I told the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), who is a supporter of the high interest policy which is producing these lay-offs, that scientific evidence indicates clearly and unequivocally that when unemployment rates increase, the number of people who will suffer ill health increases. He stood up and said that it was nonsense. That told me something about the state of knowledge and the state of caring in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and in the cabinet generally. They say one thing and do another.
When I asked the minister the question, I had in my hand a study by Professor Brenner from Sir Johns Hopkins University. The figures presented by Dr. Brenner suggest that when there is a 1.4 per cent increase in the unemployment rate, social and health consequences follow. Coincidentally, this 1.4 per cent is very close to the increase in the unemployment rate in the last 60 days. It does not include the lay-offs announced this week, last week and the week before; they were massive. We will be looking at a 9 per cent unemployment rate when the next set of figures comes out. It will amount to well over one million Canadians, and there will be consequences.
I should like to read some figures into the record. Suicide is predicted to rise 5.7 per cent with a one per cent increase in the unemployment rate. Instead of 100 people committing suicide this month in Canadian cities, it will be 106. There will be something like an 8 per cent increase in the homicide rate, an 8 per cent increase in the number of people who will be murdered because of the increase in unemployment in the last 60 days. Last November, almost a year ago, some figures were provided by the Canadian Council on Social Development to all members of the House, including the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They indicated that somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 people in the coming 12 months will die because of the increase in unemployment. When one has devoted a significant chunk of one's life to productive service to an employer for the production of goods and services which we all need and value, and suddenly society says, "You are laid off; you are no longer useful", it throws the individual and his family into a crisis. It is the kind of crisis people find very difficult to deal with. They bottle up their feelings, they do various things with them, but the consequence is scientifically demonstrated to be an increased need for things like health care funding. The budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) of a year ago indicated that he intended to cut out $1,500 million worth of social spending related to hospitals, medical care and retraining for people who are laid off. We have a policy which is throwing people out of work. Yet it is accompanied by a policy in which health care funding will not be increased but will be decreased. They will throw people out of work, they will give them heart attacks, but there will be no available hospital beds. This is the reality of Liberal policy. It is a translation of highfaluting statements about a just society and caring about people.


Charles L. Caccia: Nonsense, sheer nonsense!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We must look at the consequences of the policies we pass in the House. I am being heckled by hon. members opposite who have stood for one year in the House and told us how wonderful the Constitution was. Two days ago it was turned over back to front to do exactly what we said it should do. Now they will stand up to tell us that black is white and it is still wonderful. We are supposed to find the heckling credible, we are supposed to find the support for legislation credible, but it is incredible that they stand and say that black is white. They stand up and vote when black turns into white or white turns into black and do not even blush about it. There are social consequences to every piece of legislation passed in the House. We should examine the reality of the consequences of this policy.
Earlier in the House today we had an argument about NDP philosophy, Liberal philosophy, Conservative philosophy and their impact on people. One fact that is related to the economy, to the issues of lay-offs and of productivity, is that if the current one million unemployed people could be employed in the production of goods and services, there would be adequate money for elected members to give to the people who really need it. Every member of the House should have received and should have read the article of last November by the Canadian Council on Social Development. Appendix I compared the amounts of social assistance available province by province. Out west there are two provinces side by side, Alberta and Saskatchewan. They have tremendous resources. Saskatchewan has oil, potash and farmland. The people of Saskatchewan are fortunate, but they have selected CCF and NDP governments over an extended period of time. The people of Alberta have selected governments that knew one simple truth, that if you do not create any wealth, then you cannot share anything. The easiest thing to divide is nothing; all of us can have a share of that!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In the year 1979-80 a family of four on welfare or a family in trouble that needed help from society received $6,700 in the province of Saskatchewan. This was the product of NDP and CCF management over a period of time. In the province of Alberta, a family of four would have received $10,500, almost 50 per cent more because it has a long history of selected governments that understood that
November 6, 1981

when you create wealth, you have something to share with the unfortunate people in society. You just do not talk about it a great deal; indeed, you do not have to talk about it because you can do it.
If any member of this House were faced with the prospect of a lay-off, or an extended period of drawing unemployment insurance-and most members of this House have never been in that position-he could ask himself what comfort glowing phrases and lovely words are when his kids are hungry or he cannot afford to let them go to the skating rink, when his wife is worried or when he seeks to escape his problems with a bottle. That is a consequence for the one million Canadians who are unemployed today. That is a potential consequence for the several thousand people who have been laid off in this country this week, last week and the week before that.
When I examine this piece of legislation, I cannot get rid of the image of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce standing in this House earlier today. When I asked him what he was going to do about the health victim that the government's economic policy is creating, he laughed. Many members of his party laughed as well. They seemed to say, "It is not a serious problem. We don't care about the health victim of economic policy. That is nonsense." "That is nonsense," the minister said. It is not nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It is a scientific fact. The scientific fact translates into real people, people who are having those heart attacks, those marital breakdowns, people who are going to jail because their way out of distress is to do something illegal. Those are the real consequences of the kind of economic policy that we have had for far too long in this country.
Do hon. members opposite not care? I find that hard to believe. I meet those hon. members in the halls and I know that many of them do care, but far too often they do what they are told instead of what is right. Far too often they are not encouraged to look at the words and the consequences of those words.
I skimmed through this bill earlier today, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps after two years I am becoming sensitive to certain themes. Those themes run through bill after bill that we consider in this House. I find them disturbing and not in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian society.
One theme which runs through almost every bill brought forward by cabinet to this House is that we will have some kind of board or commission. Two things are wrong with a board or commission, Mr. Speaker. The first is that the minister appoints the people who will serve on it, and the second is that the minister and the cabinet determine the amount of money the members should be paid. Just once I should like to see a piece of legislation come into this House which would provide for the appointment of a board or commission but would stipulate that the appropriate standing committee of this House would conduct a public inquiry into the background and competence of the people to be appointed, and that Parliament would control the amount of money to be paid for their services. If that were done then we, the elected representatives of the people sent to this chamber, could be
Business of the House
helpful in screening appointments to make sure that the people selected to serve on a board or commission had the background, the value systems and the professional credentials adequate for the job.
That kind of principle has never been contained in a piece of legislation brought forward by the cabinet to this House in the two years that I have been here. Instead, the minister shall decide who shall serve and the minister shall decide how much they shall be paid.
We are often amazed when we see the names published in The Canada Gazette. Regardless of the board, or commission the members are frequently defeated Liberal candidates or Liberal campaign managers. It is as if performance in that one function, serving the Liberal Party of Canada, were the primary and only qualification required to make the kinds of decisions about people's lives that the board or commission provided for in Bill C-78 is going to be asked to make.
This commission will be asked to sit in judgment on individual Canadians. If you are laid off, then you will have to be in a designated industry or a designated region before you are eligible to apply for benefits. That designation comes, basically, from cabinet. If you live in a Liberal cabinet minister's riding, then you are more likely to be designated than if you do not. Everybody's tax dollars are involved but people are not treated equally from coast to coast. Whether you are deemed eligible will depend upon where you live. The cabinet minister's campaign manager will probably be head of the board, and you will have to provide that person with any piece of information requested. There will be no secrecy or no concern for your rights. The board can compel you to give information. Then that person may sit in judgment, and you will get your $100 or $150 per week or you will not. One person will and the other person will not.
Is that the kind of system that we as Members of Parliament believe to be in the best interest of Canadians?
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, publics bills, notices of motions and private bills.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) indicated earlier today in a conversation with me that at this hour he might be prepared to announce the House business for next week.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but before going into the
details of the business for next week I want to say that I have
consulted with my colleagues on the other side. It seems that

November 6, 1981
Business of the House
there would be unanimous agreement to the following House order relating to Remembrance Day. We all know that under the Standing Orders, the House shall not sit on next Wednesday, November 11. However, we had discussions on the floor of the House, and meetings outside this House about what to do on the evening of Remembrance Day and the following day. We have come to the following agreement. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to seek unanimous consent for the adoption of the following House order:
That the House shall adjourn at 6 p.m. on November 9, 1981, and shall stand adjourned until November 12, 1981, at 8 p.m. at which time the only business to be taken up shall be Government Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the request of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Is there unanimous consent?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is an accurate description of the bare bones of the discussions. Although I will have to stay here, not being able to get home for Remembrance Day, we give our consent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is going to go on to outline the business for next week.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I might just make a slight correction to which, I think, everyone will agree. By inadvertence I said the House would not sit on November 9. That should have been November 10. It was an obvious error. Otherwise my colleague would not have said he would not be able to go to his constituency. Therefore, I ask for unanimous consent that in that House order we replace the date of November 9 with November 10.


Erik Nielsen: I was hoping he would not spot that, Mr. Speaker. I understood what he meant when he discussed that with me. He can be forgiven since I missed Motion No. 10 in the fourth category last night.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The correction will be entered.


Yvon Pinard: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the House will adjourn on Tuesday the 10th at six o'clock until eight o'clock on Thursday the 12th. As concerns House business for Monday, we shall proceed to the third reading of Bill C-48 concerning oil and gas, which we hope to be able to conclude on Monday, and if
this cannot be done, we shall try to get third reading on Tuesday afternoon before the House adjourns at six o'clock. Next Thursday evening, the budget will be brought down. We have not yet determined what the order of business will be on the following Friday, but I have indicated to my colleagues that early next week, before the House adjourns at six o'clock on Tuesday, I should be able to confirm whether we shall have the first two days of the budget debate on Friday the 13th and the following Monday. What I can say for the moment, is that the third reading of Bill C-48 is scheduled for Monday and also Tuesday, if required, and the budget speech for Thursday evening.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) indicated that he would confirm the first and second days of the budget debate prior to the adjournment on Tuesday, November 10.


Yvon Pinard: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Public bills Nos. 18 to 71 inclusive allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be brief because I do not want to delay the important matter to be debated by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). It is simply that the order of business follows the order for private members' hour as listed on the Order Paper. Prior to the bill which is to be debated this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton West, there are seven bills for which it says "Text received", and therefore not printed, not in the members' hands. Those bills, therefore, cannot be stood because they are not available for second reading. Therefore, I suggest they should eventually be removed from the Order Paper. You might like to take that under advisement, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: As the hon. member has requested, the point will be taken under advisement.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the House of Commons Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
November 6, 1981

He said: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that this bill has been before the House on a number of occasions in the past. I have been the sponsor in its present form. Other motions have been made in past years concerning the Commissioners of Internal Economy. I have moved in a period of transition with this bill. If hon. members have any idea of the management, administration of the management and provision for members' services in this House, they will fully understand my motivation in putting forward this bill.
I want to make it patently clear that putting forward this bill, which ultimately has the Speaker delegate the Speaker's powers with regard to the administration of the Chamber, is absolutely no reflection upon the present or any previous incumbent of the Chair. It is a matter of principle. I have nurtured it ever since I was Speaker. In those years of many years ago, there was only one fifth or one sixth of the number of employees now on the strength of the House of Commons.
What I intend through this bill is that all matters of administration of this House be delegated to a committee of five commissioners. The number of commissioners would be expanded by one. The commissioners would come from the House generally and not be limited artificially, as they have been hitherto for some 114 years, to active members of the cabinet.
A few years ago, the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, as a result of a casting vote by one of your colleagues now in the chair, decided I was wrong in saying that commissioners could be members of the Privy Council wherever they sat in the House. All good authority was on my side, but the politics of the situation at that time was such that they could not agree with me. Be that as it may, what came out of those committee hearings was an advisory committee on management and members' services. That was only a small step forward. This House is governed by a system that is an anachronism in legislatures around the world as we know them.
It is my humble submission that the Speaker, in addition to being the official host on behalf of the House of Commons, has more than enough work for any super competent person. The role of the Speaker should be limited directly to this chamber and to that which is appurtenant to it, such as Hansard and the committees. In my view, we should not, as the present management committee has decided to do, hive off Hansard, the committees branch, and the clerks under the Administrator. I think that is a shocking decision. I have said so publicly, and I repeat it publicly.
As I said, my bill would amend the House of Commons Act by naming a fifth commissioner, a person who, like the others, need not be a member of the cabinet. He or she could be an active member of the cabinet. As a formula I would suggest that one of the ministers of state, perhaps a junior minister, could be named a commissioner and that person designated as the chairman of the Board of Internal Economy. The bill would provide, if the government and possibly the majority of
House of Commons Act
the House saw fit, for a representative on the board who had a direct link with the cabinet. We are practical people. I think it is good in that way to have somebody who can act as liaison with the cabinet.
The position of the Speaker as a commissioner is not abolished by the bill. The Speaker by my bill delegates his or her powers to one of the other persons, who is to be chairman of the committee. It is a formula, but in principle it seems to me that we still have to have the Speaker as head of the House of Commons. Even though the Speaker is head, it does not mean that his or her powers cannot be delegated. This delegation of power takes place at Westminster.
It was a strange thing but until a few years ago the monarch, either the king or the queen, was actually the head of the palace of Westminster. The powers of management and so forth were exercised on behalf of the monarch through the Speaker. That power was turned over from the monarch to the Speaker, and now the Speaker in turn has delegated many of the Chair's powers, or obligations, to members of the management committee. The Speaker can still participate because the Speaker has not yielded his or her position as a commissioner.
With regard to the administration of this chamber, I would say that there are now about 3,200 or 3,300 employees who come under the direct umbrella of the jurisdiction of the Speaker. The organization is now much more complex. When I was Speaker 20-odd years ago-and one hates to refer to a time that long ago-there was one building under the Speaker's jurisdiction, with a second one coming on strength. The West Block came on strength shortly after I yielded office to my successor, Speaker MacNaughton. Now the West Block, the East Block, the Confederation building and the Wellington building are all under the aegis of the Speaker. There are many ancillary areas which, as one who served as a Speaker, I feel take up far too much time and energy of the Speaker today. I refer specifically to this sapping administration. Even with the best will in the world and with competent officials to assist the Chair in the discharge of those duties, too much time and energy is demanded of the Chair, to the detriment of the discharge of the actual duties of the Chair.
There is one point on which I will be critical. I do not think the Speaker occupies the chair enough. The position of presiding officer is, immediately after question period, turned over to a series of assistants or deputies. The Speaker returns to the chair only to preside over formal votes. I suppose the Speaker would have to come back into the chamber if there were an appeal from one of the assistant Speakers.
It is my view that the Speaker should be in the chair much more often. I think the four assistants who normally occupy the Chair are involved in a further anachronism. They preside at all second reading debates, all report stage debates and all third reading debates. When a bill comes to a vote, the Speaker is in the chair. However, these assistants or deputies after having exercised the role of a presiding officer immediately turn around to vote. In my opinion, that is totally wrong. The Speaker is precluded by the rules from voting except in the case of a tied vote. There is no question about the fairness
12624

November 6, 1981
House of Commons Act
of a member of this House occupying the position of the Chair, but the rules say that that person shall not be entitled to vote. Nothing is said about the deputy chairmen, deputy or assistant speakers. They may profess to be the most fair-minded people in the world, but why are they not treated the same as the Speaker and not allowed to vote? But then we would hear the cry that far too many people from the government side could not vote. But why not follow what the Mother of Parliaments does? Deputy speakers are chosen equally from either side of the House.
All the brains are not located on the government side of the House. The same goes for the presiding officers of the House. Therefore if we followed the practice of Westminster, we would have a better balance. With my bill, I am not only getting a better balance in the administration of the House by naming people to the commission who are closer to members because cabinet ministers who are commissioners are busy men. It is very difficult to get them into meetings. At the present time I understand they have meetings at least once in three weeks. I have known the situation to go four or five months before the Speaker could dragoon those cabinet ministers together at one time over lunch. Those commissioners who came to decisions received their advice and instruction from the Speaker.
I can assure you, as an original member of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, that that practice is most frustrating, and it is wrong in form. The chairman of that committee should be along as an adviser, but he is never invited to these meetings. I think he should be. The services and the management of this House are for the members. The four commissioners as provided for in the House of Commons Act is an anachronism from 1867. They were the only Members of Parliament who remained most of the time in Ottawa. At one time members sat in this House for very short periods. Today we have a year round operation and there is no reason in the world why a senior member of the New Democratic Party, senior members of the two major parties should not be commissioners. It should not necessarily be done on the basis of party strength. There are men with greater knowledge and ability who could be administering services here, negotiating with staffs and arranging for clearances of grievances and all that sort of thing, which should be in the hands of this committee of members, numbering either five or seven.
The ultimate purpose of my bill is that the administration of this House shall effectively be in the hands of the members of this House and not in the hands of absentee landlords such as the Commissioners of Internal Economy are, commissioners with whom ordinary members have no direct contact except by buttonholing them, and that is the wrong type of influence.
I invite hon. members to examine my proposal and I would hope to see the bill, or the subject matter if so desired, sent to the appropriate committee so that we can take a look to see if we can design a formula which I in my experience of over 25 years in this House feel would be far more preferable for
members than is the present system, even though the function is being discharged by people of the greatest goodwill. The system and the format works against them. I would suggest that my bill be accepted, read the second time and sent to the committee at five o'clock this afternoon.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy this afternoon to have an opportunity to participate in this debate. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for bringing forth this private member's bill. I certainly believe it to be a step in the right direction and I too hope it will go to the committee to be discussed in more detail, with hopefully some form of it being enacted by this Parliament.
We are elected to this House of Commons, just as any minister who sits in this place is elected, with the same rights and privileges, we are told, and with the same responsibilities to our constituencies. It is true that a minister may have a larger constituency than individual backbench members, as they are called, but I submit that we are also told we have a duty to the country. I do not think anybody would suggest other than that each elected member of this chamber has a duty to the country as a whole. If we are responsible enough to be elected by our constituents, just as are the ministers, then I see no reason that backbench members of this House should not sit on the Board of Commissioners of Internal Economy.
I am not even sure, however, that the hon. member is going far enough in his proposal to change the Board of Commissioners. I am not sure that that Board of Commissioners should not be abolished altogether and the role taken over by what is now called the Advisory Committee on Management and Members' Services.
If I may, staying within the principles of the bill, talk for a minute about committees, I would like to do so. It would do little good, I suspect, to abolish the Board of Commissioners and replace it by a committee structured as is the present Committee on Management and Members' Services, or almost any of the other standing committees of the House. The committees of this House are too big and unwieldy. They have no real power, as they should. They have the opportunity generally to react to something that is already government policy. They have no policy input, as they should. In order to accomplish that, it seems to me those committees must be made much smaller than they are today.
If we had a Management and Members' Services Committee consisting of seven members of this House, elected on a pro rata basis among the parties, without suggesting that any party should have to split a member in order to have exact representation, I think such a committee could function well, not only in the interests of the economy of the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada, but as well in the interests of the real needs of members representing their constituents and carrying out their legislative work here in the House of Commons.
The time has come when backbench Members of Parliament
must not only have and take but must demand a much larger
November 6, 1981

role in policy formulation. With the evolution of society and the complexity of modern social, economic and other problems, the administration of government has grown much faster than the House of Commons, much faster than the Parliament of Canada. I am not advocating that this House should grow much larger, but I am advocating that the members who sit in this place should have a great deal more to say than they now have about what happens here, and that means a very drastic change in the Standing Orders of this House.
This is one of the things for which I have been agitating since the end of my first year here. It is one of the things we are promised with every new session of Parliament, but it is one of the things that has never been accomplished. It is my hope, and I have some faith that it will be fulfilled, that in the next session of Parliament we will take a comprehensive look at the Standing Orders of this House. I suggest that when that is done we should also take a comprehensive look at how this place itself is managed.
One of the subclauses of this bill suggests that the Speaker have the power to delegate any or all of his or her administrative powers to the commissioners. I have some difficulty with that. 1 believe we must always retain the Speaker of this House as the guardian, the protector and the ensurer of the rights and privileges of the members. The Speaker of this House is not above the other members of this House; the Speaker of this House is the first among us, and in fact in this House no member should be above any other. However, the Speaker must be responsible, in the final analysis, for the administration of the Parliament of Canada and for the protection of the rights and privileges of its members. If the Speaker is to delegate all of his or her authority, I have some difficulty in determining how the Speaker is to fulfil that role. That is a role I do not want to see taken from the Speaker.
We have many problems in this House. We have a problem as a result of every member being treated as though he or she represented an urban riding. It is obvious that the needs of members representing rural ridings may be quite different from the needs of members representing urban ridings. When I talk about needs I am talking about the necessity for staff here and for staff for constituency offices. The manner of staffing those offices may be very different in rural areas and in urban areas. I have a riding, for instance, which covers some 5,500 square miles. It is about 150 miles in length. Obviously that is quite different from the riding of Spadina, for instance, or Edmonton West.


Mr. Wilson:: What happened in Spadina?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The people made a choice in Spadina, and I have no argument with that. That is the basis of our democratic system.
1 am afraid the basis of our democratic system is not always adhered to in this place. I think, for instance, of question period. It is virtually impossible for a backbench member on the government side of the House to get a question during
House of Commons Act
question period. Members are not always equal in this place. I understand there are quotas, and I do not blame the Speaker for that. Those are conventions which have grown in this place over the years. They are conventions which I believe are dangerous to basic democracy.
As I said earlier in my remarks, each of us has the same responsibility toward those who elect us. I have a great deal of difficulty in trying to justify to my constituents that I have not the same right and the same opportunities in this place to ask a question as does the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), for example. He just happens to sit on the other side of the House. It seems a very serious disadvantage to me when compared to the other members in the House. I want to reiterate that I do not blame any individual, only the fact that over the years conventions seem to have become regulations or rules, and I do not think that is right.
The hon. member for Edmonton West said we are governed here by a system that is an anachronism. I agree with him. In fact, I am beginning to believe that this whole place is an anachronism. The rules, our Standing Orders, are an anachronism, and it is high time the rules of this place were brought into the twentieth century. It is high time we had a legislative calendar such as the legislative bodies in other democratic countries have. It is high time we stopped sitting during the kind of nonsensical hours we do. We should have a reasonable schedule so we can plan our work and have sufficient time in our offices to deal with our constituency problems.
Much of the debate that goes on in this House, Mr. Speaker, is quite useless. It accomplishes nothing.
If committees were restructured and reduced in size to a maximum of 11 members and if the membership on those committees were made nearly permanent so that members do not play musical chairs in committee, we would be able to do very meaningful work there.
The government of the day should be willing to refer to committees substantive matters in the form of proposals rather than policies so those people who are formulating a particular policy can be called before a committee to justify the choices they might put before a minister. This should not be done when these policies have been carved in stone and have become pieces of granite which are known around here as bills. It becomes virtually impossible to change a policy once it is written in a bill and presented to the House. Unfortunately, that is about the only time it is referred to a committee, after it has been presented to this House as something which is already untouchable.
The voting system in this House is another anachronism. My colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), brought this up earlier today during question period. 1 heartily endorse what he said. It would be a little nostalgic but there is something to be said, of course, for members having to stand in their place and vote because each member is standing up and accounting himself to the people who elected him. However, Mr. Speaker, when we have a situation such as we had last night where even when the votes had been grouped we had very repetitive actions taking place in this House, it is of no

November 6, 1981
House of Commons Act
value to our society or democracy. There is no longer any justification for Members of Parliament, who have finally reached the point where they are getting paid a reasonable salary for the work they do, spending their time jumping up and down in the House like jacks-in-the-box to record their vote. There is a better way, and it is not beyond the ingenuity of mankind to make that possible in this chamber. It is time it was done.
I would like to see a body of some kind, which is responsible to the members of this House, which would administer this place under the direction of the Speaker.
I have seen, in the short time I have been here, the evolution of the administration of this place to a point which I do not like very much. I do not wish anybody to confuse what I am about to say with personalities. 1 am talking about the structure and not about individuals. We have a position now, Mr. Speaker, in our House of Commons known as that of the Administrator. My recollection of the Senate and House of Commons Act is that it says that this place will be administered by the Speaker and that the Speaker can delegate authority to the Clerk and to the Sergeant-at-Arms. I have no recollection of this act ever being amended to include the position of Administrator. I am concerned at the growth of bureaucracy in this institution. I am concerned that the real authority, the real responsibility and the accountability for the administration of this place is going to fall into the hands, if it has not already done so, of non-elected people. That, in my opinion, is wrong.
I, for one, am going to insist that not only the government, but all members, continue to agitate, continue to insist that every member of this House, whether or not he is a Privy Councillor, is treated the same. All Members of Parliament should have access to government proposals, to government documents that are not already cast in stone, as I said earlier. I will insist, and I hope other members will, that the committee structure of this House be changed and that committees be made meaningful bodies of this House. They should have some authority, and if they do not, we are all wasting our time.
I am prepared, Mr. Speaker, to let the committee do its work for about one more year and if by that time nothing happens, if there are no changes, I will no longer attend it. I am not going to waste my time going through the farce that most standing committees are today.
I support the basic thrust of this bill and I hope it will go to committee so that it can study it and, hopefully, improve upon it and make some suggestions for reform of not only the administration of the House but of the structure of the organs of this House known as the standing committees so that the role of the Member of Parliament will have some meaning in this place.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Canadian parliamentary
system which is of course based on the British parliamentary system, is the extremely fuzzy line that separates the executive and legislative functions of the government. This is, of course, best illustrated by the fact that, strangely enough, both legislators and ministers sit in the House. I know that a long tradition has led to this anachronism, where in the House, for all practical purposes, the legislative and executive functions are mixed, and I am also aware that many of our constraints, such as the constraints of parties and the constraints of the government's collective responsibility are self-imposed, and that we are now in a situation where it is becoming increasingly difficult for members to show their independence. There are of course mechanisms outside the House through which members can express themselves, such as the caucus and similar opportunities for consultation.
However, since the early days of our parliamentary system, the situation has evolved to the point where members are, for all practical purposes, subject to extremely restrictive conventions. Do members realize, Mr. Speaker, that the administration of the House is under government control and that is exactly what it is, control. Only Cabinet members sit on the committee or council which administers this House at least as far as the budgetary function is concerned. This is quite extraordinary and totally unacceptable!
One of the first things that struck me when I came to this House, Mr. Speaker, was the realization that as members we had absolutely no control over our administration. None at all! This committee by which we are administered consists of ministers appointed by the head of the government. So we have here a legislative chamber that is actually administered by the government. Except for our tradition of democratic consultation and the rest, this procedure would certainly be applauded by regimes that go against everything we believe in. The sponsor of the bill under consideration referred to our world, and just now I was alluding to that other world to which I am sure no one here would very much like to go. The member is introducing Bill C-273, whose purpose is clearly to instil some common sense and, by broadening access to the administration committee, to give all members of the House an opportunity to sit on the committee and to make the division of powers meaningful. And I entirely agree on that. However, I find it unbelievable that at 4.45 p.m. we should be here dealing with a private bill so fundamental to our institution. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Miramichi refer to parliamentary reform. There are very many things to be done in that area, whether we concern ourselves with committees, votes, internal management or the conventional rules to which I referred a while ago and which virtually compel us on both sides of the House-and I am using a strong word, Mr. Speaker-to act as mere puppets as a result of standards imposed upon us. I think that the matter will require some consideration.
November 6, 1981

Have hon. members ever asked themselves, whenever a non-confidence motion as we call it is moved, generally by an opposition party, whether we are playing our role? We express confidence or non-confidence in the government but what about the other bills? What about the other bills where it is suggested that the question of confidence is also involved? Indeed when a minister's bill is rejected, the minister is assumed to have lost the confidence of the House as is the government and assuredly our colleagues opposite would be the first ones in such a case to rise and demand that the government resign and call an election. I have already said it. As parliamentarians we know how to impose unacceptable restraints. What is the true meaning of a non-confidence motion if everything we do here is related to non-confidence or confidence issues?
Now our entire concept and understanding of our own work as elected representatives to a legislative body are warped. We become locked into an impossible situation and it is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that our constituents often cannot understand how we have managed to get ourselves into such a predicament. I am speaking of course in a general sense. It will surely take some time before we do agree to reconsider this way of thinking but perhaps it is time to start something. A parliamentary reform has been announced. You can be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of confidence in the government will not be reconsidered. Perhaps it is too soon to do that as well. The hon. members on the parliamentary committee will debate the statistics or the figures and what their responsibilities ought to be. It will be suggested that the number of members be reduced. My colleague from Miramichi made an interesting statement: let us stop playing musical chairs.
You know, Mr. Speaker, never was I more embarrassed than I was two years ago, I think, when my party-I say that without false modesty-had taken a few members off the committee under the pretence that they were against a bill. I know that the system was so much different over there, and I do not necessarily advocate that system. One can imagine such a situation in the American Congress where the chairman would tell a member of the foreign affairs committee: "You know, you do not agree with me so you will have to be taken off the committee and replaced by someone else." But what are we, Mr. Speaker? Are we supposed to play our role as parliamentarians, as elected members, or simply sanction or legitimize, if you want-it is legitimate, be careful now, I am not saying that it is not legitimate, the government is elected of course and this House gives it its confidence and every four years it must undergo the electoral test, but in the day-to-day life, constantly legitimizing measures which are not necessarily in full accordance with what we think our role ought to be as elected members for a given region. And 1 am not saying that the government must fall, quite the contrary. I am simply saying that we should be able to play our role as elected members in a democratic way, and should the time
House of Commons Act
come when the government feels that perhaps it does not have the full confidence of the House because it has been defeated on a clause or on some sort of amendment or even on a bill, then the House, either the government itself or the opposition, may ask the House if the government still has its confidence.
If it has, then it can go on governing according to the wishes of the House as a legislative body. Therein lies the difference between the executive and the legislative levels. Why did we have to go through all this? To go back to Bill C-273, let us say that considerable progress has been made. When I was first elected to the House, there was not even a committee on management and members' services. We had no official spokesmen to voice our aspirations and our rights as parliamentarians to management except through the Speaker. We found ourselves in the most awkward situation of having to go and beg the government for a few dollars to buy a typewriter for instance, or to obtain the kind of services we deemed important and essential to help us fulfil our duties and obligations to the electorate. Incredible! Do we or do we not have a sense of responsibility? In other legislatures or legislative assemblies, the system is different. For example, there is the quaestorial system. I know that my colleague opposite who sponsored this bill is aware of this system which is used in the French National Assembly. However, in France, members of the National Assembly elect their own administrators in proportion to the parties represented. Does this mean that these administrators throw open the coffers, spend wastefully and do not take their own responsibilities? Not at all. Just like the other members, they are accountable for their administration and if they do not perform properly, they are either rejected by their colleagues or denounced by the newspapers and the general public. If we are responsible enough to ask our voters to elect us, to sit in this House, to rise day after day, to vote on decisions which are very important for the future of our country-there were 30 votes yesterday-I believe that we are responsible enough to administer our own affairs.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, in my opinion, there was no need for the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to take such an initiative this afternoon. It is incredible that we should even be discussing this. All the members should unanimously rise to take in hand their own destiny as legislators. However, I am not saying that the government is to blame. I am not saying that the government has not managed the House well; that has nothing to do with it. I simply say that we should show a minimum of respect for the difference between the legislative function, for which we are here, and the executive function, which has of course a purpose and which operates on a different level. Mr. Speaker, we should at least be the masters of our own destiny in this House. This is why I approve the initiative of the hon. member for Edmonton West and why I hope that we shall put an end once and for all in a few months, when we undertake parliamentary reform, to something which is anachronistic, and I am

November 6, 1981
House of Commons Act
confident, or at least I hope, that the government will see to it that we can pursue this evolution which has brought us from a situation where we had no say in our administration to the present state of affairs, where we have an advisory committee which discusses matters of interest to the members of the House and which makes excellent recommendations which have indeed been approved by the Internal Economy Commission, so that we can take our destiny in hand as the final stage of this evolution. This would only be normal. As for the rest, as for my comments on parliamentary responsibility and government responsibility in the House, it is of course a much wider issue. I have used very strong words because I believe that it is time for us, as Members of Parliament, to reflect on this matter since, once again, we have put ourselves in this strait-jacket in which we operate, and it is up to us to get out of it.


David P. Smith: I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for precipitating this discussion by bringing in this private member's bill. I know it is an issue that he is very familiar with and that he has spent many years working toward trying to improve the operation of the House with regard to matters of this nature. When we look at this issue, Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to look at how the Commissioners of Internal Economy came to have the jurisdiction that they have and where they came from.
The Commissioner of Internal Economy was established at the first session of Parliament. At that point, Mr. Speaker, Parliament met only a few weeks each year. Most of the employees employed by Parliament in those earlier days were mostly clerks and messengers who were employed on a temporary basis. They were employed for a few weeks or a couple of months at the most. Patronage was not unknown in those days; in fact, it was common and rather rampant. In 1867 and shortly thereafter it was desirable-and, as we all know that practice has long since died out and has become more or less extinct, at least at the federal level-that members from outside the Ottawa area, from more distant parts of Canada, should have jurisdiction over who was employed by Parliament on a temporary basis and who received these jobs. It was felt that to put this in the hands of members from the Ottawa area would be giving Jack the Ripper an Avon route. Perhaps it would result in some great injustices.
To protect Parliament in those days, the Board of Commissioners of Internal Economy was set up. The only members from outside the Ottawa area who were here all year round were cabinet ministers. In conducting research into the historical development of the existence of the Board of Commissioners of Internal Economy, I found that that seems to have been the rationale for the reason why they wound up doing the job they have been doing for so many years.
A few years ago, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, recognizing the immensely more complex administrative requirements of the House in the late twentieth century, recommended the creation of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services so that members, other than the Speaker and ministers, could participate in the administrative decisions of the House. I think it is fair to say that probably most of the best improvements in the administration of the House have originated from this committee.
I think it could be argued that the situation does need review. This committee often meets in camera and rarely reports to the House. This does not mean to say that the members on the committee are unaware of its deliberations or its advice.
Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the committee does not have any executive authority in law. It remains with the Commissioners of Internal Economy. The committee can review the situation and hold what discussions they feel are appropriate and make whatever recommendations they feel are appropriate. In the final analysis, they do not have legal authority. This is something that has rested with the Commissioners of Internal Economy and continues to rest with them.
An example that we might look at is the Senate. These days some people tend to view the Senate as a bit of an anachronism in many ways. I suppose that is an issue that can be argued. Perhaps the example of the Senate is worth looking into. When you look at the Senate, you will find that almost all the administrative decisions that are taken there are not taken by the Speaker or in camera or by a body that does not report to the whole House, but by a standing committee that is accountable to the Senate.
What is the result of this? In recent months there have been many rumours and allegations, some of them perhaps based on fact, others on fiction. There have been counterclaims about the administration and the machinations that go on in the House. Of course, we have the nation's gossip columnists. Many of the political columnists have had a heyday talking about the debates and internal dissension that have, in fact, occurred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 9, 1981