1981-12-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, a national emergency exists in the state of Poland following the imposition of martial law and the assumption of all power and control by the Military Council of Salvation in that country. So that the present use of water cannons is not turned into a more lethal weapons use, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the intervention of any foreign government in the internal affairs of Poland would be viewed with disfavour by this government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a resolution which I am sure will receive the unanimous consent of the House. Given that there is no central registry to commemorate those peace officers who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House request that a Book of Remembrance be initiated to pay homage to those peace officers who have died in the service of their community and that this Book of Remembrance be placed within the Houses of Parliament as an indication of Canada's gratitude and appreciation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The new developments in Poland this past weekend indicate the difficulties of finding long-term solutions in that country. Yesterday, Pope John Paul II asked on behalf of his people that there be no violence. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House go on record that there be no outside interference, that Poland be allowed to solve its own problems and that the people of Canada will provide economic assistance to the people of Poland consistent with the needs of the Polish people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLAND-NON-INTERFERENCE IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS BY OTHER NATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I seek the attention of all hon. members of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas Canadians are greatly concerned over the recent developments in Poland, and whereas Canadians strongly adhere to the principles of the Helsinki Accord with special references to basic human rights and freedoms, and whereas Canadians support the citizens of Poland in the struggle to acquire those basic freedoms to which they have a right, and whereas Pope John Paul II yesterday asked that solutions be arrived at without violence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the House urge all nations of the world to refrain from any political or military actions that may in any way interfere with the internal affairs of Poland and that this House express the wish that Poland's internal difficulties will be solved by peaceful negotiations between the Polish government and the Polish people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 14, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATURAL GAS-EXPANSION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Many natural gas companies throughout the country, including the one in my own riding, are still waiting for the government to announce the date in 1982 when funds under the National Energy Program will become available to the companies enabling them to extend their services to municipalities not now serviced.
In light of the fact that many of these companies are ready to provide this necessary service now and that many municipalities are eagerly awaiting this extension of service for residential and industrial requirements, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources inform this House of the exact date in the New Year when his department's distribution system expansion program will commence and which areas of the country will be given priority.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, in light of recent interest stimulated by the November 12 Liberal budget in the area of capital gains taxation and the negative effect that such a proposed taxation would have on the private pension arrangements of farmers, individual fishing operations and other small business persons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That all of the November 12 budget provisions relating to capital gains be withdrawn, that an all-party committee be established to investigate the issue of capital gains and to further determine the reality of gain vis-a-vis the fact of inflation, and that the committee report back to Parliament with recommendations on the issue of capital gains taxation but only after holding public hearings across Canada with representatives of those persons directly affected.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent importance. Whereas the Premier of Saskatchewan and members of his government and the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) are now in Uranium City to meet with local residents on the wider effects of the planned shutdown of the Eldorado Nuclear uranium mine, and whereas the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the president of Eldorado Nuclear were invited to join this fact finding mission but declined because of insufficient notice of three days when their notice of the shutdown of the mine was sixteen hours to the Government of Saskatchewan and nil to the mayor of Uranium City, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That the federal government enter immediately into negotiations with the Government of Saskatchewan and the town of Uranium City to discuss assistance for those of the 2,500 Canadians who have not been included in the limited federal commitment that is restricted to aiding the Eldorado worker force and who will be driven from their community within six months as the direct result of actions taken by a federal Crown corporation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas the liberal government apparently does not care about the work of the International Joint Commission, which is charged with all aspects of international waterways shared between Canada and the United States, including matters related to commerce, acid rain and schemes like the Garrison Diversion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House condemns the government for forcing the IJC to operate for almost a whole year without a Canadian chairman and requires that such an appointment be made immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
December 14, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in light of the substantial changes which, from all indications, are about to be made to the November 12 budget, changes which are likely to reduce government revenue and thereby jeopardize many programs in place or else increase the deficit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the Minister of Finance be persuaded by his cabinet colleagues to withdraw the budget and replace it with a proper set of budgetary proposals when the House resumes its sittings in January, proposals which will provide realistic incentives to industry, enterprise and the work force to get the economy out of the current doldrums.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. After an overwhelming majority of members approved the constitutional resolution, which contains a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this House allegedly followed ancient usage and custom and voted to expel a member for exercising the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression stipulated in the charter without recognizing the rights enunciated in the charter. I move accordingly , seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House demonstrate its real approval of fundamental rights and freedoms by making the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply forthwith to proceedings in the House as part of the Standing Orders so that the charter will govern over these ancient usages and customs that now apply.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POLAND-NON-INTERFERENCE IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS BY OTHER NATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It follows along the line of two motions moved this afternoon but turned down. Whereas Canadians strongly adhere to the principles of the Helsinki Accord with special reference to basic human rights and freedoms and are greatly concerned about recent developments in Poland, and whereas Canadians support citizens of Poland in the struggle to acquire those basic freedoms to which they have a right, and whereas Pope John Paul II yesterday asked that solutions be arrived at without violence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House urge all nations of the world to refrain from any political or military actions that may in any way interfere with the internal affairs of Poland and that this House express the wish that Poland's internal difficulties will be solved by peaceful negotiations between the Polish government and the Polish people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It refers to the events on the weekend in Poland. Has the government made it clear in any official manner to the U.S.S.R. how seriously we would view any interference in Poland by the U.S.S.R.? Has the government made any representations to the Government of Poland deploring the actions taken this weekend, or any representations at all to the Government of Poland? In short, what representations, if any, have been made by the Government of Canada to either the Government of Russia or the Government of Poland?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I was very happy to hear some of the resolutions in the House today. If some were refused by this

December 14, 1981
Oral Questions
side, or by the other side, it was because of a question of wording and not because of how this government views the Polish situation. With regard to the hon. member's question, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was in Dublin yesterday or the day before, where he publicly stated that Canada is watching the evolving situation in Poland with very keen interests. He appealed to everyone, both inside and outside Poland, to refrain from taking any actions which could jeopardize the situation in Poland. We are of the opinion that the situation in Poland can be resolved in a peaceful manner. We believe that this is possible.


COMMUNICATION LINK WITH CANADIAN EMBASSY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, we all know that Canada is watching. The whole world is watching. My question was to the Acting Prime Minister and it is still not answered. Has Canada made any representations in an official way to the U.S.S.R. or the Government of Poland in connection with events this past weekend? If so, what were the representations? We all know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is watching. We are all watching.
My supplementary question, if the Acting Prime Minister will answer, is this. Are we now in communication with our embassy in Poland? Can we communicate with them? Are we hearing from them? Would either the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence make a full statement on motions concerning the Polish situation? Is either minister prepared to make a statement on motions today outlining for us just what is happening and what position Canada is taking?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think it is clear that in the final analysis, this government has always defended the rights and freedoms of nations. When, on earlier occasions, questions have been asked in this House regarding Poland and Afghanistan, the conclusion was always that it was up to the people themselves to decide what their future should be.
Regarding the question of whether we are in touch with our embassy in Warsaw or with other cities, I would say that it is very difficult right now to have any communications with our embassy in Warsaw, for the obvious reason that the borders are closed and communications are controlled by the military and by the present Polish government. However, we remain constantly in touch with the capital cities of NATO member countries, who are also watching the situation very closely. Perhaps the hon. member does not like it when we say that we are watching the situation in Poland with interest, but I think that in reacting to these events, our main concern should be the interests of the Polish people. There could be serious consequences if a country failed to show restraint or did not act wisely.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN NATIONALS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am asking the minister whether his government, the Government of Canada, has made any official representations to the U.S.S.R., advising of our views with respect to any interference by them in Polish internal affairs, or any representations to the Government of Poland about events on the weekend? Have we made any official representations? We all know the world is watching, and so is Canada. Can the minister answer those questions? Will he make a statement on motions on what the government has done, if anything?
Also, can he tell us is the government satisfied that any Canadian nationals, who are now in Poland, are safe? Is the government satisfied with respect to that? Could the minister just answer these questions, because it is a serious issue that we want some serious answers to, or would the minister like to give us more detail in a statement on motions?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, when I mentioned just now that we were looking very closely at this situation, it should be clear that we are concerned about the situation in Poland and that we are also watching out for the safety of Canadian residents in that country. We have received word that the lives of Canadian residents in Poland are not in danger. The embassy is using all available means to get in touch with them and give them appropriate instructions on what to do until communications are back to normal.


UNITED NATIONS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister, and also deals with the international scene. In view of today's surprising announcement from Tel Aviv, would the Minister of National Defence inform the House what plans Canada has with relation to our troops who are currently participating in UNDOF? What is Canada's official reaction to these events?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think the reaction of the Canadian troops there today is just the same reaction as they have always had there. We are there as a peacekeeping and information force. I do not think there is any change in that situation as far as our troops are concerned in that part of the world.
December 14, 1981


FUNCTION TO BE PERFORMED
Allan Bruce McKinnon: The minister is surely aware that these are not peacekeeping forces, that they are observers who are unarmed. There are over 200 of them. Will the minister tell the House if he is in any way satisfied that they will be able to perform any useful function, considering the news from Tel Aviv this morning?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, if our 200 people there are observers, who are unarmed, and who are there to examine the situation which is happening in this part of the world, then obviously they are there as a peacekeeping force. They are certainly not aggressive and they are not so conditioned. I can assure the hon. member that if they were not useful to the countries there, they would not be there, because we have a better use for the troops elsewhere.


EXTERNAL AID
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. No doubt the minister is aware that over the weekend the Canadian government and some Canadian bankers decided to provide something in the order of $250 million to develop copper mines in Peru. What possible justification is there for spending $250 million Canadian dollars to develop copper mines in Peru when we in Canada have closed one copper mine in Newfoundland, when we are closing one copper mine in British Columbia, and when we are presently laying off in Manitoba where there are two mines that yield a significant amount of copper, thus causing unemployment in Canada, and creating employment with Canadian dollars in another part of the world?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, the $250 million loan that the hon. member refers to will bring 3,000 person-years of work to Canadians.


BENEFITS TO CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to enumerate exactly how many Canadians will receive employment as a result of spending $250 million Canadian dollars in Peru, in operations that are, in fact, being closed down in this country, where people are becoming unemployed and where, in fact, we ought to be using those dollars to develop secondary industry here rather than in some other part of the world?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are employing a great number of Canadians. Goods and machinery will be sourced here in Canada and will provide jobs for Canadians in badly needed areas. I might add that the copper mine that is
Oral Questions
being developed in Peru would have been developed by other sources if it had not been for the aid of Canadians. In this way we are guaranteeing jobs for Canadians. Those mines which are being closed in Canada are being closed for various reasons, including declining ore grade. In this case we are very sure of providing the kind of employment we want for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


USE OF CANADIAN RESOURCES
Ian Deans: Surely the minister recognizes that instead of using Canadian dollars to open up those mines, mines that will pay workers only 86 cents an hour compared to what Canadian workers earn, it would make more sense to use Canadian workers to develop Canadian resources. If we were to do that, we could still put those additional workers to work who will make the machinery. Why are we not using our resource to build our infrastructure in order that we will be in the forefront of world development?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing; we are using our resources.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: Canadian mining expertise is world renowned. Exporting the kinds of machinery and engineering techniques which are being exported is precisely what we should be doing in Canada.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now that the federal board of review has confirmed that urea formaldehyde foam constitutes a health hazard, will the minister tell the House of Commons today how the government intends to live up to its moral responsibility and compensate those Canadians who are suffering from UFFI?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, according to the four investigations conducted during the past few weeks, the results of which were published this morning, a small but substantial percentage of homes insulated with UFFI contain more than the generally accepted maximum of 0.1 parts per million. In the light of these findings, within the next few days the government is to

December 14, 1981
Oral Questions
announce a financial assistance program for Canadian homes that contain this product.


ECONOMIC SITUATION OF HOME OWNERS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. According to the report today, the findings of the review board indicate that reactions varies with individuals, so it is difficult to determine precisely the number of people who would be affected in terms of their health. Consequently, in view of the fact that over 100,000 homes have been insulated with urea formaldehyde foam, and that over 40,000 of these homes have been insulated under CHIP, under federal government licence, could the minister assure the House that the program he will announce today or tomorrow will address the very serious economic situation which the government has created for these 100,000 Canadians?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, first of all, I should like to correct the hon. member's preamble, where he mentions 100,000 homes. This number is more like 80,000 homes. Second, the hon. member mentions the responsibility of the government for apparently misleading home owners. The hon. member knows perfectly well that is not the case. The advertising campaign on home insulation was not directed to that particular product. Aside from those two mistakes, I can assure the hon. member that the government will act responsibly and, within the next few days, announce a program that will be directed to all who are suffering from this product.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT IN PARLIAMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister knows-and if he does not know he can certainly check with the minister of housing-that the urea formaldehyde foam insulation was licensed, approved, and given an approval number under CHIP by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If that is not a responsibility on behalf of the government, 1 do not know what is. The minister indicated that the government has a moral responsibility. Will the minister give the House an undertaking that he will make the statement in the House so that we will have a chance to respond accordingly?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am at the present time consulting with the industry and with provincial governments, and I do not intend to announce the program, as far as the Canadian government is concerned, until those consultations have been completed. Therefore, I cannot give the hon. member the assurance that the federal program will be announced before
the end of this week. I shall, of course, do whatever I can to do so by the end of this week, but I do not think the hon. member, whether or not the House is in session, would want to deprive home-owners who stand to receive financial assistance from the government of this announcement.


THE BUDGET
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister made formal representation to the Minister of Finance that he suspend the taxation of medical and dental plans for unionized workers until existing collective agreements expire?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: No, Madam Speaker, I have not made formal representations, but I have drawn the problem to the attention of the minister.


POSITION OF NON-UNION WORKERS
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. If he has made no formal representations on behalf of the unionized workers, has he made a formal request on behalf of non-union workers who have medical and dental plans through their place of employment?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, there is no need to draw a distinction of that kind. Representations can be made, and I would make them at any time on behalf of working Canadians who may be affected by any provision of the budget; therefore, I have brought that particular aspect of the budget to the attention of the Minister of Finance.
While I am on my feet, Madam Speaker, I would like to add something to my reply to a question put by the hon. member on Friday. Inadvertently I replied only to half of his question by saying yes, and did not answer the other half of the question by saying no. I will do that now. I hope that, having made that inadvertent omission, I have triggered the sense of humour of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the
December 14, 1981

severely depressed state of the lumber industry in northern Ontario as evidenced by mill shutdowns, massive lay-offs, and inventories that are excessively high, I should like to know whether the minister is in a position to use his persuasive powers to prevail upon the Canadian National Railways to postpone for at least a six-month period the very high freight increases for the transportation of lumber that they have announced. These increases will amount to 11 per cent on January 1 and another 5 per cent on June 1. At this time the industry simply cannot bear these costs, which cannot be passed on, and so would mean more lay-offs and higher unemployment in a region that is already suffering too much from these social problems.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is passing a value judgment under which the railways would be in a better position to foot the bill than the lumber industry would be. I am quite willing to use these well-known persuasive capacities of mine, but before I do so I will speak to him, and to my department and the CN about the situation in the lumber industry, and try to compare it with others before I use these persuasive qualities of mine.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the ministers, my question is for the Acting Solicitor General, the Acting Minister of Justice, or even the Acting Prime Minister-any one or all three.
Has any member of the Government of Canada executed any warrant under the Officials Secrets Act empowering the security service of Canada to intercept by electronic, mechanical or any other means, communications to or from the members of employees of any provincial government and in particular, the government of the province of Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was supposed to be here to answer questions, but she is not. May I take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister for an early reply?


USE OF PROVISIONS OF OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I assume the minister is replying under his other hat of Acting Prime Minister and I will put my supplementary question to him. When these interceptions take place, unquestionably political information about the activities or policies of that provincial government would also be obtained and passed along to the federal government. Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if these facts would justify a provincial attorney general or a provincial minister of justice charging the paid agents of the federal government, namely the security
Oral Questions
service personnel, under the Official Secrets Act? Can the provisions of the Official Secrets Act be utilized by a provincial government as well as the federal government?


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously I do not know; my hon. friend is right. May I repeat the offer I made in answer to his first question, that I will bring this to the attention of the minister without, of course, accepting any of the premises of the question.


EXPLORATION AND DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week Bill C-48, which provides for the production of and exploration for gas and oil on Canada lands, made its way through this House but it has not yet become law, as I am sure the minister is aware. Would the minister tell the House if it is his position that exploration and drilling in the Arctic can still occur under the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act until such time as Bill C-48 becomes law?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks me for a legal opinion, and I will give him a free one. I used to charge for these opinions, but I will give him a free one.


Mr. Nielsen:: No wonder you went broke.


Marc Lalonde: Until Bill C-48 is passed by the Senate and proclaimed, the existing laws are still in operation.


CONSTRUCTION OF ICE ISLANDS BY PANARCTIC
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I realize the minister did not charge too much for that. In answer to my question, however, I hope that he will lay the appropriate charges. At the present time Panarctic, which is 45 per cent owned by Petro-Canada, is illegally constructing ice islands to be used as drilling platforms in the Prince Gustaf Adolf Sea, just north of Mackenzie King Island, a mere ten degrees south of the North Pole.
Since the necessary permits under existing legislation on which the minister just commented have not been obtained, and since Bill C-48 is not yet law as the Senate has not passed it, will the minister be laying charges against Panarctic today, or will he issue a cease and desist order for activities in that area, or is Panarctic beyond the law north of sixty?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is wrong on at least one point. He should know that all Canada lands above the sixtieth parallel come under the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I

December 14, 1981
Oral Questions
would therefore invite him to raise this point with the minister when he is back in the House.
On the second part of the question, I will inquire from the appropriate officials about the situation, but taking into account his remarks and his question, I doubt that his information is right. I will examine the matter, however.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Has the minister or any of his staff been approached by Transport Canada requesting the immigration of fired air traffic controllers from the United States, or of air traffic controllers from any other country? Will the minister assure the House and the people of Canada that the occupation of air traffic controller will not be considered an importable skill and that the available jobs in air traffic control will go to Canadians?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I have not been approached by the minister or, as far as I know, by any officials of his department. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, my first response to that is that it would not be likely, because there is a pool of well-trained air controllers in this country. We are always interested in encouraging the development of well-trained people in Canada when the opportunity presents itself.


POSSIBLE HIRING OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I should like to put my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Is Transport Canada giving serious consideration to hiring fired American air traffic controllers? If the answer is yes, why? If the answer is no, will the minister assure Canadians that fired U.S. air traffic controllers will not get the available jobs in air traffic control and that they will only be offered to Canadians? Will he give that assurance today?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will not. It seems to me that having recognized that we have some difficulties in recruiting air traffic controllers, we should at least leave ourselves open to the possibility of accepting a few from the United States if no Canadians are available at a particular moment or in a particular region. I do not want to say no, because there might be exceptions and then I would be accused of having lied to the House of Commons, which I never did, of course. One thing which is absolutely certain is that no decision on hiring will be taken without the knowledge of the minister.


RAILWAYS
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport concerning an issue on which I gave notice two or three weeks ago. It relates to the costing orders which the CN or CP would apply with respect to their applications for abandonment of branch lines. Does the minister consider it fair that, in their costing orders, CN or CP can put forward four categories of costs, three of which re-apply even if the line is abandoned? There could be situations where the cost on a line is indicated to be $2 million when, in actual fact, the cost could be as low as $200,000 or $300,000. Does the minister consider that to be an acceptable procedure on behalf of the railway companies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sure that Your Honour understands the question very well. I am not sure that I do. The hon. member had asked me to look into that matter a number of days ago. It is obviously a very intricate question. Consequently, I have asked my department to look at the matter in conjunction with the CTC, but I have not yet had an answer. I will push to get the answer as soon as possible so that I can transmit it to my hon. friend. But as the question is a very technical one, I do not dare to give an opinion today.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I recognize the complexity of that question, and I respect the answer that the minister has given.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION BE GIVEN EXPANDED POWERS OF RECOMMENDATION
Arnold John Malone: I would like to ask the
minister a supplementary question. I think both of these questions are parallel and complicated. While the minister is making representations to the CTC, could he once again re-open the question of the limited mandate of the CTC only to abandon or to extend a line for five years, and the question of the CTC having the prerogative of recommending that a line which is the subject of an application for abandonment be included in the basic railway network? Without these two, the costing orders, and recommendations respecting the basic network, sooner or later, somewhere down the road, all branch lines on the prairies will be gone. Would he also extend that recommendation to the CTC?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this possibility now exists. The CTC can recommend to the minister that there be inclusion of a branch line in the basic network system. However, the decision to include or not top include is one which the minister must make himself. But, again, the CTC can make such a recommendation.
December 14, 1981


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last Friday, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Ontario, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources refused to acknowledge the serious state of decline of the Canadian oil and gas industry since the National Energy Program was introduced 13 months ago. Therefore, if the minister is confident in his view that the industry is not in a state of decline, would he permit a reference to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works so that during the five-week Christmas break this committee could determine the status of the industry and its plans and, in particular, the impact on the manufacturing industries of Ontario and Quebec which supply this industry?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, for months the Committee on Natural Resources has held hearings on Bill C-48, and a great many people appeared beforethe committee throughout Canada. I myself appeared before the committee again, only few days ago, and I have had an opportunity to give evidence on this subject. At that time, I pointed out in my reply to the member for Ontario last week that there had indeed been a decline in the activities of the oil industry during the period following the announcement of the National Energy Program, up to the conclusion of agreements with the oil producing provinces, and that the absence of an agreement with the oil producing provinces had been a factor in this decline, but that activities seem to have picked up at the present time. In fact, we are projecting an increase of between 25 and 50 per cent in the activity that is expected to take place in Canada lands in 1982 compared with 1981, which indicates a high degree of confidence in the revival of the oil industry, at least in Canada lands.


CANADIANIZATION OF INDUSTRY
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I guess the minister is not prepared to have an independent analysis of his judgments. However, one of the goals of the National Energy Program was the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry. As the minister knows, Canadianization can occur through takeover of foreign-owned companies or through the relatively more rapid growth of Canadian-owned oil and gas companies.
Given that the latest budget contains several provisions which will make it much more difficult for the smaller Canadian oil and gas companies to grow, can the minister indicate whether this is an accidental consequence of this latest budget or whether it is a deliberate decision on the part of the government to dismiss the contribution which smaller Canadi-
Oral Questions
an oil and gas companies could make to this goal of increased Canadianization?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must have misunderstood my first answer. I indicated that in the first six months of last year there was indeed a decline of activities in the petroleum industry compared to 1980. However, I also stated that our forecasts, for instance, in Canada lands-


Harvie Andre: Canada lands, not Canada.


Marc Lalonde: -during 1982 indicate that there will be an increase by 25 per cent to 50 per cent in activities.
As far as the Canadianization program is concerned, the hon. member knows that the Canadianization of the industry proceeded very well last year and that there has been a significant increase in Canadian ownership in the oil and gas industry. We are hoping that this rate of increase in Canadian _ ownership will be maintained throughout this decade, whether it takes place through takeovers or farm-ins or joint ventures. We are encouraging all ways and means whereby Canadian companies will be more active in the oil and gas industry and whereby the Canadian control of that industry will take place over this decade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT ON NORTHEASTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Throughout the deliberations on Bill C-48, and particularly since the agreements have been signed with the producing provinces, the minister has been stating that he could notice very stimulating effects on the oil economy, not just in the Canada lands but in the provinces as well. So far, these effects have eluded the area of northeastern British Columbia which is the only producing area in that particular province. Instead, there has been a very serious economic bust.
What advice would the minister give the many small businesses which have gone under or are in the process of going under? These are oil service businesses which employ Canadian people and utilize Canadian technology. What advice would the minister give to 5,000 workers in that region who were normally employed in the energy sector, and to small municipalities which must cope with the social problems and factors which are usually associated with that kind of economic bust? In other words, what could the minister point to in the national energy package or Bill C-48 to restore confidence in the oil sector in British Columbia?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member attended many meetings. There were approximately over 100 hours of committee meetings. I am surprised that he does not realize that Bill C-48 does not apply to British Columbia. It applies to

December 14, 1981
Oral Questions
Canada lands. Therefore C-48 would have no effect, one way or the other, upon activities in British Columbia.
As far as the statements by the hon. member concerning the oil service industry in northeastern British Columbia are concerned, I think it would be more accurate to describe it as a gas service industry because, as the hon. member knows, British Columbia is essentially a gas producer. In the agreement reached during the course of our discussions with British Columbia, British Columbia recognized that its taxes and royalties, or its take from the industry, were too large. British Columbia said that it would review the share that it was taking in order to reduce it. In effect, as the hon. member knows, many producers had abandoned production in British Columbia because the government of British Columbia was taking too much.


PETRO-CANADA EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it is quite true that I attended most of the meetings, numbering over 100, deliberating Bill C-48. Throughout the whole deliberation I was always very skeptical of the minister's assessment of the effect which that particular component of the national energy package would have on the oil economy. There is a very serious effect on the provinces when the minister offers an 85 per cent rebate for exploration costs in Canada lands but only 35 per cent in the provinces. That affects the provinces, because whatever rig has not left the country to go to the United States is now heading for Canada lands, and PetroCan is one of these companies. Would he give directions to PetroCan to review its exploration and development policies in areas such as northeastern British Columbia which are very hard hit by these policies?


Marc Lalonde: The amazing thing about the hon. member's statement is the fact that he does not seem to want to acknowledge that provincial governments, having a significantly larger take than the federal government-this particularly applies to British Columbia-should be expected to make their own contribution to the welfare of that industry within their own borders.
The Government of Canada has taken care to ensure that there will be strong incentives for industry operating in Canada lands and is providing a contribution to that effect from general taxpayers. We are also making a contribution to the activities in the provincial lands, but if there are any shortcomings in that regard, we expect that the provincial governments will do their share, bearing in mind that they are the main beneficiaries, as compared to the federal government, of the exploitation of those resources in those provinces.
As to Petro-Canada, I have looked at the capital budget of Petro-Canada very carefully. The cabinet has looked at it in the last week and we have an extremely good, forward-looking budget for Petro-Canada for 1982. I am confident that Petro-Canada will continue to play a major role in ensuring that the oil and gas industry in Canadian hands is very active in the year to come.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and it concerns the critical need for affordable rental housing. At least 100,000 units of affordable rental housing are needed in Canada right now. Since the government's offer of interest free loans for 15,000 new rental units to complement about 25,000 co-op and nonprofit units will not provide nearly enough to house tenants now, much less in 1982, will the minister assure this House that all of the 15,000 rental units which will receive government subsidies will have rents geared to incomes, as this is the only way to ensure that these will be affordable for tenants?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as was indicated in the budget speech, one third of the 15,000 units which are designed to meet low and middle-income families seeking moderate rental accommodation will be available to those provinces that wish to join with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the federal government in the provision of a further subsidy over and above the provision of what we believe to be low market, moderate and, therefore, affordable rental units. Most provinces, I would say, have indicated that a design, in order to achieve some kind of wide income range in any particular group, as a planning device is better not to have 100 per cent, that is, of one particular project, under the rent geared to income formula.


ASSURANCE SOUGHT THAT RENTAL STOCK WILL NOT BE SOLD
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I take it that this means there will be only 5,000 units available for middle and low-income people, not even enough to meet the needs in Halifax much less in Canada.
Since in the past tax write-offs have been used to build strata title housing which are units that are not rent controlled and can be readily sold for massive profits as condominiums, and we do not want this kind of fiasco repeated, will the minister tell us if he will guarantee that all rental units which receive government subsidies in the future will be retained as affordable rental stock and not sold off? Will he make this a requirement to qualify for government subsidy?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would have to indicate at the outset, and I repeat,
December 14, 1981

that these 15,000 units are designed to be housing accommodation available to people of low and moderate incomes. In addition to that, one third of them-5,000-will be available to people who need subsidy even over and above what is available to people of lower market rental incomes. On top of that, the 25,000 non-profit and co-op housing is addressed to that very same market with mortgages available at 2 per cent, providing affordable accommodation.
In so far as the question of stratification is concerned, while the program is in place, and while the interest-free loans are being paid off by the entrepreneurs, the developers or the builders, these projects will be protected-at least during that interval of time.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As he no doubt knows, the Minister of Finance today in Toronto called on his provincial counterparts to join him in the battle against inflation by holding down wage increases for public servants. Given this clarion call to restraint based on the backs of public servants, will the minister indicate how, in the face of that statement this week, it could have raised Governor Bouey's salary so dramatically last week, and how Canadians can possibly believe anything this government wants to say on that matter?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the question by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. Surely he is aware that the federal government during the last year, and preceding that, has consistently followed a policy of following the private sector, and I believe our record speaks for itself. Wage increases in the public sector at the federal level have been reasonable, have not been excessive, and we intend to continue that policy.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my friend knows that the increase for Governor Bouey was 10 per cent, bringing him to a dramatic new high. I think we have to know what the government's policy is. Is it going to freeze the wages of public servants? Is it going to allow the Minister of Finance to set, by fiat, the level of salaries for public servants? Can they be assured that there is not one standard for Governor Bouey and another standard for other public servants in this country? In view of the inconsistencies of the government's actions and its words, I think some clear statement would be of interest from the President of the Treasury Board.
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I find it quite astonishing that the hon. member would charge that 10 per cent is an excessive increase at this time. I am sure we would all be very satisfied if national wage increases were in the order of 10 per cent. I seem to recall the hon. member voting himself a raise somewhat in excess of that.


An hon. Member:: And you too.


IMMIGRATION
Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I apologize to him for not giving him prior notice of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, it seems that people opposite always want to play partisan politics, even on most urgent and serious matters.
In view of the fact that martial law has been imposed by the Communist regime in Poland, and the flow of people into and out of Poland has been forbidden, will the minister please tell this House what plans he has to allow Polish people in Canada who have no relatives here to stay in Canada without having to go to a third country, as at present? Does he have any contingency plan to allow Polish people who are in Canada and have no relatives here to apply for permanent residence immediately?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has asked the question, even without prior notice, because I think this is a serious situation and one that we are also looking at very closely. In terms of the position of Polish nationals who are presently in Canada, I would remind the hon. member and other members of the House about the special measures we did introduce, which do allow Canadian families to sponsor those who are in Canada, and Polish nationals without families to apply for ministerial permits which we are prepared to give so they do not have to return to Poland. Those permits would be assessed after a year or so when conditions clarify, or whenever they do clarify.
In short, Madam Speaker, I can indicate that, as far as Polish visitors or nationals in Canada are concerned, they do not have to go back under the present arrangements, and I would be very pleased to have our immigration officers meet with them to give them any advice or consultation they find necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 14, 1981
Petitions


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and fifty-sixth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) on Friday, December 11, 1981 and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Madam Speaker:: Tabling of documents.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the tabling of a document, or rather the absence of the tabling of a particular document which we have been awaiting for many weeks. It concerns the results of the tests that have been conducted since last June to determine the levels of urea formaldehyde foam insulation-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. Tabling of documents is a procedure by which those who have documents to table can do so. However, if such documents are not tabled it does not constitute a point of order.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, if you would perhaps allow me to clarify the situation, the paper will be tabled tomorrow.



Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, a petition signed by 118 residents of Oxford, including supporters of the major political parties in Canada, which calls attention to the great damage to Canadian business and the considerable inconvenience experienced by the Canadian public as a result of direct strikes involving the public service. The postal strike of last summer is a case in point.
With this in mind, the petitioners call upon the federal government to take immediate steps to make it illegal for employees of the federal government to go on strike.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, which was signed by citizens of the WestBank area in British Columbia and who have formed themselves into an anti-nuclear society named "Candu Won't Do", is to bring to the attention of the House a statement to which 5,903 signatures have been affixed detailing the inherent global hazard to human life itself as a result of slow or catastrophic radiation damage through the use of nuclear technology. The copy page of this statement is attached to this petition.
The nature of the petition is to pray and beseech this House to introduce a bill to Parliament which would stop all nuclear-related activities, including uranium mining, production and sales of Candu reactors and the decommissioning of all existing nuclear reactors.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that you will find their petition in order and that, through their efforts and this petition, Members of Parliament and the citizens of Canada will be alerted to the magnifying threat to human life posed by nuclear industry activity whether the purpose is for benefit or destruction.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,057, 3,088, 3,102, 3,111, 3,112, 3,317 and 3,330.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	With reference to section 10.44 of the 1980 Report of the Auditor General, on what data, surveys, information or other statistics is the redistribution of budget allotments based?
2.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs concluded that the majority of veterans would rather stay at home than go to veterans hospitals and, if so, on what information, surveys or other sources is this conclusion based?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. The budget for the Aging Veterans program is based on the experience of those provinces which offer care in the home as an insured health care service. No redistribution of budget allotments is involved, as new funds were provided specifically for this program.
2. The Department of Veterans Affairs has concluded that the majority of veterans, like the majority of other Canadian citizens, would rather remain at home, retaining their indepen-
December 14, 1981

dence to the degree possible, than be institutionalized. This conclusion is strongly in accord with the literature in the field of gerontology which states, emphatically, that as long as it remains a feasible alternative, most elderly individuals strongly prefer to remain in their own home.
In developing the Aging Veterans Program, which has as its aim the preservation of independent functioning to the degree possible, the veterans' associations across Canada were consulted and there continues to be an ongoing consultation with these veterans' groups relative to the program.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did Atomic Energy of Canada Limited acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does Atomic Energy of Canada Limited have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Marc Lalonde: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did Uranium Canada Limited acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does Uranium Canada Limited have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Marc Lalonde: Uranium Canada Limited reports as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did Eldorado Aviation Limited acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does Eldorado Aviation Limited have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Marc Lalonde: Eldorado Aviation Limited reports as follows:
Order Paper Questions
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did Eldorado Nuclear Limited acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does Eldorado Nuclear Limited have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Fretz: Following the meeting of the 35-state Intergovernmental Council of the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC) held in mid-June, does the government intend to contribute to the launching and implementation of the program and, if so (a) what amount of money and manpower (b) what were the names of all Canadians involved (c) which (i) international agencies (ii) countries will receive assistance?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: Canadian preparations are under way for the second meeting of the Intergovernmental Council of the IPDC, to be held in Mexico in mid-January. Appropriate government departments and non-governmental organizations are working to determine what form Canadian participation might take.
The first meeting of the council set the broad outlines of the program but did not define specific mechanisms nor did it identify projects. It is anticipated that at the second meeting projects will be presented for support; we do not yet know the specifics of these projects, but they are likely to be regional rather than limited to one particular country. Until more information is available, the Canadian contribution to the program cannot be determined.


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past five years, by province, what was the total amount of fees paid to trustees in bankruptcies?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The information requested is not available. Please note that our statistical system is such that it is impossible to separate fees paid to trustees apart from other administrative costs.

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits


David P. Smith: I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Mr. Murta:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary question No. 3,440, which is a starred question that was placed on the Order Paper on November 18. It concerns some committee work done by the Minister of Agriculture, a committee that he set up. It is fairly straightforward and I would hope that he would give it his utmost attention.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 6, consideration of the motion of (Mr. Caccia) 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 the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, this afternoon we are debating Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code.
This bill has been with us for a period of time and we are now into second reading. The bill sets out the details of an aid program which is to be made available to older employees who are laid off as a result of plant shutdowns. This program extends benefits now available to certain employees in designated sectors, and this bill is designed to extend these benefits to all industrial sectors. As well, these benefits will extend to community-based programs which were announced jointly by the Departments of Labour, Manpower and Immigration and Industry, Trade and Commerce in the beginning of 1981.
I think it goes without saying that although the bill will provide some worthwhile benefits, it is too little, too late.
There are massive lay-offs occurring at this time, many plants closing and bankruptcies taking place every day. Bankruptcies are up by 50 per cent in small businesses as well as in the farming industry. The budget for this new amendment, I note, is $2.5 million for the fiscal year 1981-82. It will not be retroactive to help all those people who are experiencing great difficulties right now. I think of the Admiral Corporation which laid off 2,400 workers and went into receivership. Those workers are not receiving back pay, holiday pay or benefits that are owing to them. These workers were laid off just before Christmas and they have no relief whatsoever because their benefits are tied up. That is just one example. There are hundreds of other examples throughout Canada which could be cited. Some of my colleagues will be expressing their concerns in this connection later today.
This bill was originally ruled out of order before Parliament adjourned for the summer recess in mid-July. At that time we thought that this bill would go through rather quickly on second reading. However, there are some matters to be discussed before the bill goes to committee later today. It is my understanding that the bill will go through second reading today and into committee tomorrow.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are now debating is one which is not launching a massive assault on the problem of unemployment in Canada. It will do nothing for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are now being laid off as a result of the depression that is now under way because of the incompetent policies of the government which we have had since March, 1980.
Bill C-78 only makes provision for employees of a designated industry which is closed down, and those employees who are laid off will receive certain benefits, if they do not otherwise qualify for benefits. An industry is designated because there has been a significant loss of employment due not to economic recession but to import competition or industrial restructuring or the like. Or an industry is in a region that has been designated by the government. All that is going to happen is that these laid-off employees, as 1 understand it, who are, at least in one category, 54 years of age and have worked in the industry for at least ten of the preceding 15 years, or who were at least 50 years of age, have worked in the industry at least 30 years but are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance, do not qualify for a Quebec or Canada pension and are not able to obtain other work either through job retraining or relocation or both, will receive additional assistance. That is what this bill basically provides for. It is an inadequate response to the present problems we have in this country with respect to unemployment.
It was a pledge of this government in the election of 1979-80 that they were going to do certain things. I just want to put on the record some of the things they said they were going to do. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said this on January 12, 1980:
December 14, 1981

We have an economic program for the eighties which will enhance dignity, create opportunities and provide security.
That was his economic program for the eighties, and we have to ask this government now, where is this program which is going to enhance dignity, create opportunities and provide security? What Canadians have had any security provided for them in the 22 months since this government came to office? What Canadians have had their dignity enhanced by this government's policies since it came to power in February of 1980? What opportunities and what security is being provided? That is what we ask. That was the pledge. Rather than do anything in the economic sphere the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, defeated a government that was doing something along these lines and replaced it. It was on the basis of these promises that they did so.
I want to refer also to a transcript of a press conference the Prime Minister had in Toronto on that day, January 12, 1980. On page 5 of the transcript he was outlining five great principles that were going to be put into effect if they were re-elected. The third one is this:
-we will implement a development and industrial strategy which will provide jobs, spur growth, increase Canadian ownership and control.
Where is it? Where is the growth that has been spurred? We just had a quarter in which the gross national product declined. Where is the industrial strategy that has provided jobs? The only industrial strategy has been to help Massey-Ferguson or Chrysler in their tremendous troubles and to try to save a few jobs there, not to provide additional jobs. Then the statement was made:
This party will not simply stand by and let the recession come. We will fight it and overcome it.
That was the Prime Minister's statement in January of 1980. He was not going to stand by and let the recession come. "We will fight it and overcome it." Where is the fight? Where is the overcoming? Is it represented in this pitiful bill that is now before the House to help a few people if they are over 50 or over age 54 in a designated industry? Is that the great fight against recession? Is the budget of November 12 this great fight against recession? Is the budget of November 12 going to fight and overcome the recession? It is not. It is going to assist the recession, as every observer has said.
The Prime Minister went on to say in the same press conference:
We must increase the economic might of Canada by strengthening each of the regions. We will make the big projects happen, whether they be developing the fishery in the Atlantic, rebuilding the railways in the West, developing new manufacturing strength in Ontario and Quebec, or expanding British Columbia's resource and trade potential. We need a national government that builds up rather than tears down.
How much of that pledge has been carried out? What regions have they strengthened? What region of Canada has been strengthened by this government since it got into this House? I can assure you this: it has weakened the Atlantic region, it has weakened the province of Newfoundland, it has engaged in a dastardly conspiracy and combination to put down the province of Newfoundland because the government of the province of Newfoundland will not bow and will not
Labour Adjustment Benefits
accept the dictates of this government. It had a chance in Newfoundland to assist in the field of economic development on a project in my own district, which I will mention briefly just once again, the project of providing a synchrolift for the federally-owned dockyard in St. John's, Newfoundland. It had a chance to assist in the dockyard that it owned that has a great chance for the future. It has been in operation now since the late 1880s. It was given to the Government of Canada as a gift in 1949 when we entered Confederation. This government made a pledge in 1978 to provide the financing for a synchrolift, a three-berth synchrolift, to enable that dockyard to continue to function and be successful in the future; to preserve the 350 jobs that were there and to increase that number by another 150 jobs. Yet rather than carrying that pledge out, and rather than spending the money provided by the PC government in the estimates to start that process of a synchrolift in the federal dockyard in St. John's, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) used the money for some other purpose and cancelled federal assistance for the federally owned dockyard in St. John's, Newfoundland, to provide the synchrolift. They left it to the province, and on Tuesday of last week, December 8, the government of Newfoundland announced a $30 million project at the federal dockyard in St. John's. The financing is to be made available by the province, $10 million in loans and subsidized interest, so that the CN, which operates that dockyard on behalf of the Government of Canada, would go ahead and award the contracts for the synchrolift project.
This is the government that promised to increase the economic might of Canada by strengthening each of the regions. It has deliberately attempted to damage the Newfoundland region because it does not agree with the policies or the statements of the government of the province of Newfoundland and has forced the government of Newfoundland, which is the least able to afford it, to spend money on a federally owned dockyard in St. John's so that that dockyard will be able to persevere in the future, so the 350 jobs that are now there would be saved and another 150 jobs would be created. If that is not the most shameful piece of economic poltroonery ever undertaken by a Government of Canada, I do not know what is. There could not be a worse example than this low, foul, political act of a government that was elected on the basis that they were going to increase the economic might of Canada by strengthening each of the regions.
Since I am referring to the Newfoundland region, let me look at another subject in connection with the Newfoundland region, and that is the so-called DREE agreements. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) is never in his place in this House to answer questions in this House, and that minister has made it a deliberate policy not to sign agreements.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the minister to whom he just referred was in his seat today during question period.

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits


John Horton McDermid: That is not a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is more often not in this House than he is in this House, and we can check the records of the House since the session started last fall to see that he is never here to answer questions. He is afraid to be in his place to answer them.
Rather than trying to strengthen the regions, this is a minister who has eight DREE agreements pending with the government of Newfoundland that he has refused to sign. The premier of the province cannot get hold of that minister to get agreements signed. Last week that minister had the member for the district, the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), announce that a surplus from an existing DREE agreement would be spent in Corner Brook when it was supposed to be spent there all along, under an agreement that I had signed with the province in 1979. There is a deliberate plan by this government not to sign DREE agreements with the province of Newfoundland. That is so that unemployment will increase in Newfoundland, so that economic pressure will increase in Newfoundland on the government of Newfoundland to bring that government to surrender its will and its independence to the federal government.
So while they bring in this kind of palliative bill which also gives them far too much power to designate industries and to designate industries in regions to allow political factors to interfere in their decisions, while they are doing that, we have seen a calculated campaign by this government to use in Newfoundland the discretion they have to crush Newfoundland as a region, not to develop jobs and not to develop its economy. I can go ahead and give further instances in a few minutes.
At the Toronto press conference the Prime Minister was not Prime Minister then. He was a lot more humble then. He was not the arrogant figure we have seen in the House these last few months with his fascination for the Constitution. Nero fiddles while Canada burns. He is fixated on the Constitution, constipated on the Constitution. There has been no other movement of the government except constitutional movements, and let the economy go. This was his fifth point:
-the Liberal party commits itself to enhancing the dignity and security of individual Canadians.
How? He did not say how. Further on he said:
We must endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job.
That was the pledge of the Prime Minister in that campaign, "We must endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job". What is the reality today? You can pick up the paper at any time, Mr. Speaker, and see what the reality is. For the week ending November 4, there were 979,000 people unemployed, an unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent over all nationally. In Newfoundland, my own province, there was an unemployment rate of 15.3 per cent. That is the official rate. In actual fact, it is somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent of the working population of Newfoundland that is unemployed.
Statistics Canada admits that there are 348,000 hidden unemployed in Canada not shown in the figures because they have given up looking for work. There have been no jobs so they are no longer looking for work. Newfoundland is the worst province for that. The participation rate declined last month. There were 50,000 people who dropped out of the labour force. If they had stayed in, the adjusted rate would have been 8.6 per cent. The actual number of people out of work according to the November 4 statistics was 928,000.
Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who just brought down his budget, show any hope for the future? He does not. He forecasts for this year an average unemployment rate of 7.2 per cent. He forecasts for next year, after his tremendous budget is implemented, if it ever is, a rate of 7.8 per cent and in 1983 a rate for the year of 8.3 per cent.
In the last three months, we have been told by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, more than 140,000 workers lost their jobs in Canadian factories, according to Mr. Roy Phillips. It is going to be a long, cold winter, said the spokesman for 8,000 manufacturers. The Ontario labour ministry says 67 plants in the province, 34 of them in the Toronto area, have already shut down. Another 89 have curtailed operations. On and on it goes.
The worst situation of all with reference to employment is in Newfoundland. This government, rather than attempting to help Newfoundlanders and the Newfoundland government overcome this tremendous problem of unemployment, has deliberately acted to decrease employment in Newfoundland by withdrawing federal assistance from a federal project, a federally-owned dockyward in St. John's and by refusing to enter into DREE agreements. It has refused to sign an agreement and spend transportation moneys in Newfoundland. It is now engaged in cutting off or reducing ferry service from North Sydney to Argentia. One of the two ferries will be taken off next year. It is going to reduce employment in the Argentia area of Newfoundland, one of the worst hit areas already with respect to employment in the whole island of Newfoundland. That is the Prime Minister's program when in office.
Let us look again at the hypocrisy. This is the most hypocritical and pusillanimous government this country has ever had and, in my book, the Prime Minister is the most reprehensible. This is what the Prime Minister said, and I quote from the Toronto Star of April 24, 1980:
-it's more important to create jobs and ensure economic growth than to reduce the federal deficit.
He has not passed that message on to Mr. MacEachen. I quote his exact words:
"We're not obsessed by the deficit in the same way as Mr. Clark's government was," Trudeau said at his weekly news conference yesterday.
"We will not reduce the deficit at the expense of creating more unemployment."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I expect hon. members to respect the rules of the House and not name other members by name, but rather by the position they hold, their title, by department or the constituency name. I invite hon. members to comply with the rule.
December 14, 1981

Mir. Crosbie: I am just quoting from this press clipping which does not say "Prime Minister". It says "Trudeau said", but I will change it. Here is what the Prime Minister said, for those fastidious gentlemen opposite who hope to lip their way into power somehow in the cabinet. He said "We will not reduce the deficit at the expense of creating more unemployment." Why is it that his Minister of Finance has just brought in an allegedly deficit-reducing budget? He is going to reduce the deficit next year by approximately $3 billion. That is after a 54 per cent increase in indirect taxes.
This is the government that was so concerned about taxation in December 1979. It has increased its take in indirect taxes by $8 billion, or by 54 per cent between last year and this year. It has increased the total taxes taken from the Canadian people by 31 per cent this year. It is going to increase spending by 22 per cent. Therefore, there is going to be a slightly smaller deficit, almost $3 billion smaller, by the end of the year. This is the government whose Prime Minister said, "We will not reduce the deficit at the expense of creating more unemployment". He went on to say this:
The government does not need to reduce the deficit to help the economy "because it is a healthy economy".
This dilettante does not worry about whether we have a healthy or unhealthy economy. Whether it is healthy or unhealthy is not going to affect him one jot or tittle, not one whit. He will still be there at 24 Sussex Drive. He will still have all his nannies and people to help him look after things no matter what happens to the Canadian economy. He is not going to retire. Of course he is not. He will need to have his hands pried off the door sills there and be hauled away after he is trounced in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He likes the swimming pool.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, he likes the swimming pool, but he will never pay for one of his own, that's for sure. The government says it wants a healthy and regionally balanced economic development in Canada. The facts are to the contrary. Why is the government now trying to seize from Newfoundland jurisdiction and control over the offshore minerals? Why has it put up a crimp in the offshore operations for the last 12 months by taking such a selfish attitude toward development of the offshore resources off Newfoundland?
This government has neglected the fishing industry. The fishing industry of Newfoundland is in extremis. There can be no rural economy in Newfoundland without a healthy fishing industry. The government has done nothing in the crisis of the last six months to help the fishing industry.
Fishery Products Limited, the largest employer in Newfoundland in the fishery, closed two weeks early for Christmas and does not know when it will again open in January because of the economic situation of the fishery. The Lake Group, the second largest Newfoundland owned company, has 2,500 employees. It buys fish from 1,600 inshore fishermen. There are 20,000 people who live in communities directly dependent
Labour Adjustment Benefits
on that economy, such as Gaultois, Grand Bank, Fortune, Bonavista, Feormeuse in my own district with 240 people now laid off, Englee, Bide Arm, Cook's Harbour, Baine Harbour. Those plants are not operating, except for the Fortune plant, and one day a week at Gaultois. There are 27 trawlers laid up by that company, which is in the hands of the banks. They are now waiting to hear from the Government of Canada, in particular the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans- (Mr. Leblanc). Will the government provide $15 million by way of loans or grants or whatever to the Lake Group so that they continue operating? They want $15 million from the federal government and $5 million in assistance from the province. Why has this not been acted on? It involves 2,500 employees.
Look at the papers. We see that the government is going to have to pay $125 million flowing from loans and guarantees to Consolidated Computer Incorporated in the Ottawa Valley over the last decade-$125 million thrown away. They do not employ 100 people. The Newfoundland fishing industry with tens of thousands employed is about to collapse and this group across the way has not put forth one dollar by way of loans or guarantees. Does the Newfoundland fishing industry have to move to the Ottawa Valley to get some attention? What is the matter with this Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? Why does he not resign if he is not prepared to grapple with those problems? The government provides $125 million for Consolidated Computer Incorporated and not a red cent so far for the Lake Group which employs 2,500 in Newfoundland and is the sole support for 20,000 people living in communities along our coast. What is the matter with the minister?
How does that square with the pledges made in this election document? How does that square with the Constitution? What good is the Constitution to those 20,000 people who live in those communities? The 2,500 people who work for the Lake Group do not give a damn about the Constitution because it will not help them. It will not keep them employed one minute longer. In fact, it is responsible for their pending unemployment. It has occupied the minds and attention of the pea brains opposite for the past 18 months.
This same Lake Group has now got a contract to supply the Long John Silver food chain. The pirates opposite will be familiar with the Long John Silver food chain that was going to buy a large quantity of good quality cod if they could survive until next year. They have to be told now to know whether they will be able to send trawlers out in January to catch this cod to supply these contracts. They have not been fishing now for four months. What is the matter with the government? Do they not have any conscience at all? Does the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) have any conscience? Or do any hon. members have a conscience? No. They only do for Consolidated Computers Incorporated, for Windsor, Ontario, or somewhere where they have districts. This is a district that is represented. Most of these communities are represented by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons).

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
In addition to that, we have a situation in the mining industry in Newfoundland; for example, in Baie Verte. In the Baie Verte peninsula, Advocate Mines is closing down the asbestos mine that is owned by Johns Manville and the Eherit group at the end of this year. Six hundred and fifty people will be unemployed at the end of the year in that mining industry, not because there is not any asbestos fibre left, but because of the depressed condition of the world. Construction is down and one cannot get the price for asbestos. Also there are health concerns about asbestos that are lowering the use of asbestos around the world. Six hundred and fifty people will be laid off. Two hundred and fifty are now laid off with another 400 to go by the end of the year.
In the same town of Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker, we have Consolidated Rambler Mines owned by the Irving group closing down. They were going to close at the end of November with 200 employees. The copper mine was going to close because they are running out of copper or it is now low grade. They are operating month to month. Their schedule might end at any time. They are limping along, and certainly ending by the end of March, 1982. That is something like 850 people on that one small Baie Verte peninsula where 11,000 people live, 3,000 in the town of Baie Verte. What will be done for them? So far there is no offer of any assistance from the Government of Canada or from the Minister of National Revenue whose district this is. He is making attempts with the province to try to find another operator, but as yet there is no offer of any assistance from the federal government. What is the matter? Is it out of sight, out of mind? Does one have to live in central Canada to have anyone worried or concerned about them? What is the matter with the government?
What about the statement of the Prime Minister when he said:
This party will not simply stand by and let the recession come; we will fight it and overcome it.
When will he start his fight and when will he start to overcome it? What if one of his trained seals over there bangs his flippers, smacks his paws together-he is used to having his paws up in the air begging for a little something from the old patronage trough. He should not be so quick to bang his flippers. He should insist that his leader carry out his sacred pledges. Of course, he would be awfully surprised if he did.
How is the economic might of Canada being increased? How are they strengthening each of the regions? Here is what the Prime Minister said:
We will make the big projects happen.
Does anyone see the Alsands plant underway? Does anyone see Cold Lake underway? When are they going to happen? They have been there 22 months now. Then the Prime Minister goes on to say:
Whether they be developing the fishery in the Atlantic-
All that has happened to the fishery is that it is a shambles, it is about to collapse. Since August most of the fish plants in Newfoundland have closed. Is that how this government increases the economic might of Canada and of Newfoundland? Is that how they develop the fishery? They are here tittering and tottering about whether they should give a $15 million loan or guarantee to the Lake Group which employs 2,500 people, when they are prepared to give $125 million to Consolidated Computers Incorporated, because, to the illiterates opposite, if one were to mention "computer" their eyes shine and they think they are on to something wonderful. They think it is the wave of the future. Let us call it "Fishery computer" or "Lake Computers Limited". Would it do the trick if we were to change the name from the Lake Group to "Lake Computers"? Then we would see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce jump up and they would have $100 million in no time, particularly if they agreed to move to the Ottawa valley, Windsor, Hull, or somewhere in the province of Quebec or in Ontario, to the great central Canada. That is not the kind of economic development we were led to expect.
Is it finished for Baie Verte? That is what the article in the paper asks. Are they finished there or will there be some plan of action announced by the Government of Canada that is supposed to represent all of Canada, that has the financial resources to do something? Rather than then doing something, they are trying to assign the responsibility to the provincial government. It is a province that already has the least in the way of financial resources in Canada, that is badly squeezed for funds, that this government has been punching in the stomach financially for the last year and a half, refusing DREE assistance, refusing transportation assistance, refusing economic assistance, refusing assistance to federally-owned facilities in the province that they got for free at the time of confederation. This government has punched this province insensible. They are now trying to say to them: "If you want the Lake Group saved, you save the Lake Group. If you want Advocate Mines saved, you save Advocate Mines. If you want Consolidated Rambler Mines saved, you save Consolidated Rambler Mines." On and on it goes.
The siren will not be its death wail. The town of Grand Bank will not wait to see what will happen. The Great Lakes fish plant in Grand Bank has been closed since August. Five hundred men were thrown out of work. The Lakes trawlers are tied up in Grand Bank. They will not allow any of the trawlers out until they have assurance that the Grand Bank fish plant will operate again. If they leave the town, they die. If they leave, the town will die. If Lakes go under, the town of Grand Bank will likely die, the Town of Fortune will likely die, Gaultois will certainly die and Feormeuse will certainly die, unless someone else takes them over. With today's financial and economic situation in the fishery industry of this country, who will take them over?
Today we are dealing with a puny, insignificant, and palliative bill, when we should have a program that this government presents to the House for the economic development and progress of the country. How does the government propose to meet the recession that is well under way? When will the government come clean and withdraw that dastardly budget of November 12? How amused I feel at times to watch the Minister of Finance swallow himself. He is getting read for a
December 14, 1981

big gulp. He wants to do it when this House of Commons has recessed. He wants to announce the changes that he will make when we are gone. He hopes he will not be discovered.
Or will he wait until February, Mr. Speaker, and introduce a new budget? Will the Minister of Finance say: "I did not realize there was a recession coming when I brought down my old budget. My officials did not tell me about this recession. I brought in a budget that was not going to look after a recession but now I will bring in a budget that will really look after the recession, which will really get it going." Then he will bury in his budget all of these things that have so aroused the anger of the people of Canada. In every nook and cranny of Canada the people are angry; in every segment of society they are angry. One cannot speak to any one of them because they are angry. They want to put the boots to this government. They want to put the boots to Mr. MacEachen, to the "Minister of Finance"-I should not use his name. We do not want him identified because it is not safe for him to go around if he is identified. They are waiting to get at them. They are waiting for an election to be called. They cannot wait for it to be called.
Now, will he introduce a new budget in February? Or what will the minister do? He is so used to playing his cards close to his vest that he suffers from ingrown cards! That is why the department did not know what he was going to do. He did not know what the department was suggesting that he do. He just wanted to pretend to Canadians that he was reforming the tax system. He was too clever by half, Mr. Speaker. He was going to make us all forget the fact that the budget did not do anything about the recession by talking about tax reform. He thought that he was putting the boots to the wealthy. Instead of that, he was putting the slippers to everybody. He was putting it to everybody in Canada. He did not understand. He is a bachelor, Mr. Speaker, and he does not have to worry about his retirement benefits because he will receive the full benefits that a member of this House receives when he retires, and the minister will be retired after the next election. He will receive the maximum benefits. He does not have to worry about that. Why should the Minister of Finance have to worry about RRSPs? He has far more than an RRSP would ever give anyone. Why does he have to worry about deduction of interest on an investment that one might make in some risk-creating opportunity in Canada? He has never made such an investment. He has been in the cocoon of this government. He has been nuzzling at the bosom of the Government of Canada all during his working career; he has not had to worry about risk taking. He does not understand what is risk taking. He has never had to take a risk.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Carnell Crosbie: Order! There is another group of sucklers at the bosom of the state. The sucklers had better not start heckling. He did not understand that these provisions would be a savage attack upon our system in Canada as we have known it. Now he will have to change it. He will have to give some
Labour Adjustment Benefits
assistance to the risk taker. He will have to give some assistance to people who are saving for their retirement. He thought he had taxed the life insurance companies. He does not understand that if he taxes my life insurance policy he is not taxing the life insurance company; he is taxing me on what I hope to save for my retirement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If some of the loud mouths opposite would just speak to cabinet ministers in caucus, as they should, then I think the country would be far further ahead.


Mr. Collenette:: Read the bill.


John Carnell Crosbie: They come around and they mutter to us. They say how disappointed they are at the budget and how angry they are with the Minister of Finance, but they do not dare say "boo" to the Minister of Finance because he would give them the flick, and their noses would be out of the patronage trough and they would starve to death in no time. They will not make a noise. They will not make a sound as long as the patronage trough is right in front of their snouts. It is only when that is removed that we will hear from hon. gentlemen opposite.


David Michael Collenette: Speak to the bill.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member can speak to the bill when he gets his chance to speak to the bill.
Look at this headline: "Gloom is busting out all over as industrial investment drops". E. P. Neufeld, who was the assistant deputy minister for taxation, now chief economist for the Royal Bank of Canada, said that we will have to borrow $886 billion internally in the 1980s through profits and depreciation on the business side to finance economic growth. He added that another $144 billion would have to come from foreign borrowings. This is the government that is so full of muscle when it comes to foreign investment. This is the government that got itself into so much trouble in the last 18 months that it had to drop it and be good boys when Uncle Sam leered at them. Uncle Sam waggled his moustache at them and they had to change their tune quickly. We will have to borrow $144 billion outside Canada to meet our needs for expansion in the 1980s. We can ill afford to be thumbing our nose at the foreign investor. We can ill afford to thumb our nose at the U.S. investor.
We will have a deficit in the balance of payments on the current account this year of $9 billion or $10 billion, the largest ever. We are living off the rest of the world. Under the Liberal regime for the last seven years, up to 1980, they had $26 billion in deficits in the current account of the balance of payments with the rest of the world. If the rest of the world was not prepared to lend us money, if it was not prepared to invest money in Canada, the Canadian dollar would not have been worth one copper, not one nickel, not ten cents. The only thing which kept the value up was the fact that foreigners and Americans outside Canada were prepared to lend us money or invest here in Canada. Then the genius Minister of Finance,

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
the genius Prime Minister and the genius government turned around and thumbed their noses at the outside investor. They thumbed their noses at the U.S. investor and said that they did not want them, that they did not want the private sector and that they only wanted government ownership and control. That is why the Canadian dollar went down. That is why interest rates went up in the last 12 months. Had we been in office, they would have been 5 per cent or 6 per cent lower, at the very least, than they were in the last 12 months, and we would not be dealing with any recession today. There would be no recession underway in Canada today. The country would be far stronger if the government and its NDP allies had not acted so precipitately. There is not a finance minister in the country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Members of the NDP, the little red rump, had better keep their mouths quiet. The hypocrites go across the country moaning about unemployment and about the recession which they caused by putting the Liberals back in office. They are fully responsible for it. There is not a minister of finance in the country who has not condemned the budget. The Ontario treasurer, Mr. Miller, an impartial observer, put the boots to my budget. He put the boots to my budget within 12 hours after it was brought down. He is an impartial observer who said:
-Allan MacEachen's November 12 effort poses a real danger to Canada's staggering economy.
He called on him for a new federal budget. The Ontario treasurer has already shown his impartiality. He never said anything like that about my budget. No, my budget was fantastic. They are erecting statues to me in all public squares across the country because my tax was only 18 cents per gallon and they have taxed people 45 cents per gallon since.


An hon. Member:: And it is still going up.


John Carnell Crosbie: The British Columbia finance minister, Hugh Curtis, said:
-if the budget had been written by an enemy of the state it couldn't be much worse.
If it had been written by an enemy of the state! Well, it was written by an enemy of the state; it was written by a minister who does not understand or cannot comprehend how the Canadian system works, who does not understand that we depend upon the risk takers, who does not understand that we depend upon Canadians to look after themselves as far as they can with respect to life insurance, retirement benefits and the like, who turned around and said that he was choking off tax loopholes. Well, the Canadian people will now get a loophole around his neck. There will be a battle to see who pulls on the other end of the loophole to choke off the Minister of Finance, who so little understands the system that he thought that he was cutting off loopholes, all of which were instituted by his own colleagues and his own predecessor ministers of finance. They called them tax incentives then. In his new budget within the next few months the Minister of Finance will be calling
them tax incentives again. As he changes them all around again, he will be talking about the tremendous incentives he has given to investment, that one is now allowed to deduct the interest which he did not allow one to deduct back on November 12, and on and on it will go. This whirling dervish of a finance minister, we do not know what skirt he will drop next, nor does he. He does not understand the system.
The Nova Scotia finance minister, another impartial observer said:
-with a poor economic situation it's a very poor time to put on the brakes.
Unfortunately the brakes are not even put on. Then the newest finance minister, the NDP finance minister from Manitoba, got a dig in at the Minister of Finance. He said, reported in today's Ottawa Citizen:
I hope a new budget is one of his considerations.
I hope the federal party gets the hint there. Sometimes they have to be given hints from the Premier of Saskatchewan as to what they should do and say. I notice their own leader is not in the House today. We all miss him. I suppose he is off getting instructions from the Premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
What we see is a government that is politically motivated by politics, completely motivated by the worst kind of revenge politics which takes its political spite out on the people of a province and a region because their government will not buckle under to its dictates or will not bend over when it comes calling. They have tried and they are trying to starve the province of Newfoundland. They are responsible for the tremendous growth in unemployment in Newfoundland. Newfoundland will not bend to them. The people of Newfoundland will not bend to them. The Atlantic provinces will not bend to them. We want them to carry out their promises.
We want to remind the Prime Minister, when he is next having one of his fund-raising dinners, of the promises he made about how he would fight and overcome the recession. He said in that speech that the Conservatives plan to increase unemployment by 100,000. That was a despicable untruth, I will call it. Then he went on to say that the Liberals would fight to lower it. Now we are up to 928,000 people actually unemployed, plus another 350,000 who do not show up in the statistics.


Mr. MacKay:: He has made unemployment a growth industry.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, he has made unemployment a growth industry, as my colleague suggests. The only growth industry in Canada under this government is unemployment, the ranks of the unemployed. Where are the big projects? The boastful Prime Minister said that he will make the big projects happen, that he will develop the fishery in the Atlantic. Now they have shut down over half of all the plants. He said that they would rebuild the railways in the west. What railways have they rebuilt? He was to doubletrack the railway from Winnipeg to Vancouver. Now it is the western development fund which nobody can find.
December 14, 1981


Mr. Taylor:: He gave it all to the U.S.A.


John Carnell Crosbie: He was to develop new manufacturing strength in Ontario and Quebec. Where is it? Is that Consolidated Computers which was just closed at a cost of $125 million? Is it Massey-Ferguson? Is it Chrysler? Where is the new manufacturing strength, or the expansion of British Columbia resource and trade potential? Half of the British Columbia lumber mill industry is shut down and its forest industry is now in dire straits. This is the government of dire straits. This is the government which has produced in Canada a condition of dire straits. This is the government which will campaign in the next election on the basis of "Vote Liberal, we will guarantee you dire straits".
This government that we face across the House today still has another two or three years to go. How long, Mr. Speaker, can the people of Canada endure this dire straits government? How long will they endure it? How long can we endure this dire straits government? Not a minute more if we could only encourage it to go.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their close attention and hope they benefit from these few words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I should like to open my remarks by congratulating the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) on his appointment, but I must say I had hoped he would bring forward a more progressive piece of legislation as his first bill than the one he has presented today.
This party is generally willing to support any legislation which offers some protection to workers. The government is deliberately creating a recession, however. On December 9 the Toronto Star reported that 140,000 factory jobs have been lost in the last three months.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) about the New Democratic Party being hypocritical. I just want to say to him that if any party in this House is hypocritical it is the Conservative Party of Canada! Not long ago when it was in government, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) stood in the House and said that he could do away with as many as 60,000 civil service jobs. And the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) stood in the House and said that there should be lay-offs for a six month period, that certain things should be done and studies made. That is the kind of government that party was.
It was the people of Canada who defeated the Conservative party, although the New Democratic Party with its policies
Labour Adjustment Benefits
and programs gave the people an opportunity to examine those of the Conservatives.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Look at what you got. Are you proud of yourselves?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the remarks of the hon. member.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to examine the contents of Bill C-78, which is an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. That sounds innocent enough until one examines the bill. The government wants to set up a labour adjustment benefits board; it wants to adjust policies and programs that it has not had the initiative to correct before this. It wants to bring in a band-aid bill to help provide some relief.
Let us examine the limited relief that this bill would provide, Mr. Speaker. In order to qualify for relief, an area would have to be designated. A qualified employee would have to be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of this country between 54 and 65 years of age or between 50 and 54 with 30 years' service in the industry. He would have to have been employed for ten years out of the past 15 in a designated industry. He would have to have been laid off in an action affecting 10 per cent of the work force or 50 employees. Imagine how many people those provisions will help when 140,000 people in the manufacturing industry have been laid off in the last three months.
In his opening remarks the minister indicated that the Canadian Labour Congress is sympathetic to the bill. I should like to put on record some recommendations offered by the Canadian Labour Congress. They are as follows:
One year advance notice of plant closures and major lay-offs and six months for lay-offs of less than 50 employees.
That sounds reasonable enough.
Further recommendations are:
All lay-offs must be justified in hearings before a Job Protection Board.
Before lay-offs take place, the employer must consult with the union on ways to avoid job loss; if lay-offs cannot be prevented, an agreement must be reached with the union covering the terms of the lay-off.
Standard hours of work must be lowered through collective bargaining; all overtime work must be voluntary; overtime pay must be increased to two and a half times the regular rate.
These are constructive proposals, Mr. Speaker. At various times in this House I have put forward a program regarding the railway industry. This government has not seen fit to bring in legislation covering the working hours of employees; consequently, they are being forced to work as much as 11 hours while at the same time lay-offs are taking place all across Canada. I think that is a shame. The government should look at areas where job opportunities exist and not force people to

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
work up to 11 hours in the operating trades of the railway industry. The next recommendation is:
Severance pay of one week per year of service.
Is that too much to ask for an employee being laid off? Other recommendations follow:
Relocation allowances to be paid by the employer in case of lay-offs. Compensation payments to the community affected by lay-offs may be paid out of a special fund into which employers contribute.
I think this is a very important point which has never been examined. When lay-offs occur in small communities it becomes a local disaster, and those communities have difficulty in maintaining their schools, recreation facilities and the normal services that they provide. This bill still only proposes to designate a few employees and leave the others to try to maintain themselves and their communities. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Labour must identify those areas. The next recommendation is as follows:
A grant-levy system to ensure that all employers contribute to the cost of retraining workers.
I think that is an excellent proposal and it should not be too hard to reach agreement on it. The final recommendation is:
Changes in pension legislation to improve vesting rights and ensure portability of pensions.
These are the recommendations of the CLC to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, so I think he was wrong in his opening remarks when he said that the Canadian Labour Congress was basically in sympathy with the bill being presented.
We in this party are skeptical about the bill, Mr. Speaker. We believe that there are serious problems with lay-offs. The Minister of Labour should bring in legislation to retrain people and to find ways of keeping employment going. The lumber industry in British Columbia is a prime example of where this is needed. That industry is staggering, the country is in need of housing, but the Minister of Labour appears to want to designate such areas as ones that may qualify for some adjustment assistance.
How would it come about, if someone were to be able to get under those kinds of programs? If it were a designated area, and if someone were trying to participate in the program, he would want to use the rules of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. If the commission were in doubt, it would put the member before a board of referees. We all know about these boards of referees. It is a great system! A board has an employee representative and a commission representative sitting on it, and a chairman is selected. It sounds like a reasonable approach and one which should work. However, time after time we have seen a board of referees hand down a unanimous decision that someone qualifies for benefits, but the commission has made that person go to an independent umpire, one person sitting and making judgment and, nine times out of ten, the judgment is in favour of the commission. That is the way the commission wants to conduct the appeal
procedure when there is something in doubt. I think that is wrong and this portion of the bill must be corrected.
A portion of the bill increases the notice period of lay-off to 16 weeks from the current eight weeks and makes a shift adjustment in severance benefits to a maximum of five days. Again, it is weak and it is not sufficient. It needs many changes.
We in this party are opposed to Bill C-78. We will be fighting against it in committee. We will be asking witnesses to come forward to present their concerns. In fact, we will be trying to improve the bill and to bring about some other recommendations which we think can help bring about some programs which will be acceptable and will meet the needs of all people who are laid off, not only the very few. Hopefully the government, in its wisdom, will also bring about a bill to include training and other aspects under this program which will help find other areas in which people can relocate. We think it is very important that the government move very swiftly to bring about needed changes, instead of this band-aid approach which it has put before us here today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I might seem to be a little out of place this afternoon because it is my intention to speak on the subject matter of the bill. That has not yet been done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Nickerson: However, if Your Honour would excuse me, there are some things I would like to speak about dealing with the Canada Labour Code, which is one of the matters contained in the bill before us. There are basically two parts to this bill, one dealing with labour adjustment benefits and the second dealing with amendments to the Canada Labour Code. However, first of all, because on occasion I tend to speak for too long and am not able to say everything I would like to say, I want to address myself to some omissions in this bill, some amendments which might be made to the Canada Labour Code but which are not included in this bill. I refer to amendments which might prove very beneficial to the Northwest Territories concerning matters which my constituents and people in other parts of the Northwest Territories have tried to accomplish for very many years.
The Canada Labour Code is divided into various parts which deal with different aspects of labour law. For instance, Part III deals with labour standards. As matters rest at present, the Northwest Territories is treated in the same manner as any other jurisdiction in Canada. They are able to pass their own labour standards legislation. In fact, they have done a pretty good job with this. We have heard very little complaint concerning labour standards in that area of the country. It is good that we should be able to do this, because some of the conditions of labour in remote areas of Canada and northern Canada are quite different from those which exist, say, in the metropolitan areas of Toronto or Quebec.
December 14, 1981

People are engaged in different types of activity and there is need for a different way of approaching labour problems.
One of the things we tend to find in that part of the world is that people come into a certain area for several weeks and work long hours because there is nothing else to do with their time off, and then they take the next two or three weeks off in their home communities. Under our labour standards ordinance, that type of activity is allowed.
Part IV of the Canada Labour Code deals with safety legislation. Again, the territories enact and enforce their own safety ordinances. I am pleased to acknowledge the fact that, within the last few months, the territorial government has taken over the administration of the mining safety ordinances. For a long time this has been territorial legislation, but its administration was in federal hands. It is a step in the right direction that the territories have now taken over that aspect of administration.
However, we now come to Part V of the Canada Labour Code. As all hon. members of this House are aware, Part V deals with labour relations. It deals with conciliation, with mediation, with certification of unions and all these types of things. Under Section 108 of Part V of the Canada Labour Code, this part is not treated the same in the territories as the other parts. The territorial authorities are prevented from enacting their own legislation dealing with mediation, conciliation, certification of unions and all these types of things which, in a province, are done by the provincial government. For many years, there has been a feeling, for two reasons, that we should proceed with amendments to the Canada Labour Code to allow the territories to take over that area of jurisdiction. I am sure that, in the first place, the reason they were not allowed the same rights as other provinces was largely an oversight.
There are two reasons, and the first is really political. Everyone knows that the territories aspire to provincial status. It is a step in the right direction to take on these additional responsibilities. Judging from the manner in which they have conducted their affairs under Part III and Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, it seems quite reasonable to suppose that they would do an equally good job under Part V.
The second reason is a more practical reason. The people who work for Labour Canada, such as conciliators, mediators and everyone else, generally do a pretty good job. We are fortunate in this country to have good government employees doing those jobs. However, they are always concerned with the great national issues. If there is a strike in Vancouver harbour, they will obviously be very concerned with that and try to get it resolved. If there are problems on the railways-and there are likely to be many more with the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)-they will be concerned with that. A strike of garbage workers in a small municipality in the Northwest Territories or a strike in a small mine which does not really affect the whole affairs of the nation will not receive the attention that it deserves. Such a strike is remote, it is out of the way, it is not a great national problem, and it will always be put in second place. The same is true when it comes
Labour Adjustment Benefits
to certification of unions. There are always hundreds of thousands of employees with federal undertakings which must be looked after in the south, while 50 members of a local union somewhere in the north just do not really count for that much in the general scheme of things. It would be good for practical reasons to have this take place.
The idea of this transfer of authority receives the support of practically everyone in the territories. It was supported by the seventh legislature of the territories, by the eighth legislature and now by the ninth. Various legislatures over a period of 15 years have continued to ask for this, and I hope they will achieve these goals in short order. The move certainly has the support of the labour unions in the Northwest Territories, and as far as I know it has the support of employer organizations. I have heard members of chambers of commerce speaking in favour of that move.
In fact, I have with me here today a letter I received from Mr. Christopher Reid, president of the Northwest Territories Teachers' Association. He addresses himself to this very issue and suggests that the problem could easily be rectified by amending offending Section 108 of Part V of the Canada Labour Code, and he suggests the following wording:
This part applies in respect of employees who are employed upon or in connection with the operation of any federal work, undertaking or business, other than a work, undertaking or business of a local or private nature in the Northwest Territories, and in respect of the employers of all such employees in their relations with such employees, and in respect of trade unions and employers' organizations composed of such employees or employers.
I think that is an excellent suggestion.
You are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, of a rather famous case that occurred a few years ago when there were some labour problems in a municipality in the territories, in the city of Yellowknife. If you read existing Section 108 you might, had it not been for the court ruling, have interpreted it to allow the territories to enact their own legislation. As a result of that case, where a municipality was found to be a federal undertaking in the territories that interpretation was cut out. It is now necessary to amend the Canada Labour Code. The process for doing this would be fairly easy.
There should be negotiations between the Government of Canada and the government of the territories. The territories should bring in their own legislation governing certification of unions, etc., and the amendment to the Canada Labour Code should be made by this House. They could both then come into force as of the same day so there would be no period when workers would not be covered in that area of jurisdiction. That is my submission with respect to Part V of the Canada Labour Code.
I would now like to get back to the subject of Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. You will recall, sir, that this was originally brought in as part of a supply bill, a very sneaky back door way of doing these things. Madam Speaker, when this was brought to her attention, quite correctly ruled that the government was trying to get away with something it


An hon. Member:: Maybe they can understand it.


Dave Nickerson: Maybe shop stewards are a little smarter than the rest of us.


Mr. Ferguson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could we get back to the topic rather than having a union discussion before the House of Commons?


Dave Nickerson: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that my speech is a lot closer to the subject matter of the bill than some of the comments being made from the other side.
This is a very complex piece of legislation. It is highly technical and hon. members of the NDP just love this type of thing. There will be a need for regulations. The bill is 33 pages long and the regulations will probably be 133 pages long. There will be Treasury Board rules and Unemployment Insurance Commission rules. Everybody will get into the act, there will be a mound of paper that thick and nobody will really know what it says.
The idea of the Liberal government is that Parliament should go away. It does not need a Parliament. What it wants is a technocracy made up of people who are familiar with the rules and regulations and all the formulae which have tried to be interpreted into legislative language.
The government says we should let these people, under its control and given the general direction, come in and fine tune here, make a few changes there, manipulate Canadians and tell them what to do, make them go from office to office and tell them how much money they are eligible to receive, and then give them their training grants. The idea behind this legislation is just to keep people under control.
Why cannot Parliament, through the elected representatives of the people of Canada, come up with a simple system? Inherent in this bill is a system of duplication. For example, someone who is laid off cannot simply go to an office to fill out the forms to indicate his predicament and then become eligible for benefits. He has to go through the procedure twice. First, he has to go to the Labour Adjustment Review Board. He has to get a piece of paper from them which certifies that he, indeed, was employed by the specified industry which meets the government rules and regulations and guidelines. He then has to take that piece of paper from the Labour Adjustment Review Board to the UIC office across the street. There he has to fill out more forms which are about ten pages thick and submit that file to see if he is still eligible. People in this
December 14, 1981

situation will get the run-around from one office to another until they become so despondent over the process that they will probably never bother to apply for these benefits, for whatever they may be worth.
The government will set up more boards and committees because the Liberals thrive on boards and committees. It is jobs for the boys. Every piece of legislation they bring before the House gives them the opportunity to make more jobs for the boys, occasionally for the girls too. I am pleased to see they are improving somewhat in that respect, at least.


André Ouellet: Are you sure?


Dave Nickerson: As the former postmaster general says, sure. He knows about this.


André Ouellet: I am asking if you are sure. You do not look very sincere.


Dave Nickerson: As an illustration of the way in which the Liberal Party of Canada is progressing, one of the recent appointments made by the former postmaster general to the board of directors of Canada Post was a lady who is president of the Western Arctic Liberal Association. That is a perfect illustration that the Liberals not only have jobs for the boys, they are also giving some of the jobs to the girls and I thank him for bringing that to my attention.
If you are talking to someone who will be laid off from one of the designated industries, the first thing he will ask is, "How much will I get out of this?" When discussing this with the Canadian taxpayer who will foot the bill, the first thing he will ask about the bill is, "How much will it cost? How much will I be paying the person who is laid off? I do not mind helping out a little, but how much will it cost?"
When I study this bill, I find that the very basic and fundamental piece of information which people want to know about is not there. The very thing that people are most concerned about in this type of bill does not appear in it. It does not indicate how much a laid-off worker will be eligible to receive. It is to be computed by one of these long, Liberal formulae made up of all sorts of calculus and algebra, computed on the basis of all kinds of rules and regulations which have yet to be made.
My next concern which I feel should be dealt with at length in committee is that this bill will create two classes of unemployed. First, there will be those people who are over 54 who have been laid off but are fortunate enough to be from a designated industry. Not all individuals will be treated the same.
There are many rules and regulations which must be met in order for an industry to be designated as certifiable or not. Those who are laid off from a designated industry will be fortunate as opposed to an individual who is out of work but is not eligible because he was laid off from a different type of industry. An illustration of this would be to consider two individuals aged 55, one working in a shoe factory and the other in a sawmill. Because the Liberals have put mortgage
Labour Adjustment Benefits
interest rates too high, no one can afford to build a house and the person working in the sawmill is laid off. He does not have any money and does not know where his next meal will come from. On the other hand, the government may change the tariff quotas, thus putting the person working in the shoe factory out of work. But in all probability the shoe factory will be designated as a certifiable industry and that worker will be eligible for all those benefits-even though we do not know what they are. The unemployed sawmill worker will not receive a nickel.
I believe this may lead to all sorts of discrimination and other actions which are not in the best interests of Canadian unity. If you are the shoe factory worker-which a lot of Liberals should be-and you see this industry failing, you know that in a couple of years you will be looked after by the government. Therefore, there is no incentive to seek retraining or perhaps to go to Alberta to get a job on an oil rig which is going to the United States anyway. It is more advantageous to stay put and wait for a government handout while everything goes down the drain. This is a built-in inequity and an incentive for inefficiency.
Of particular interest to me and to people in my constituency are those who find themselves in the same position as those contemplated in this bill. There are many people aged between 55 and 65 years old who, through no fault of their own, have been left aside by the modern world. They are people who were born into a tradition of hunting, trapping and living off the land. The wage economy in the modern world has caught up with them and passed them by. Many of these people really have nothing to look forward to. They do not speak English and it is very difficult to learn in later life. They do not really have any marketable skills and there is nothing for them to look forward to until they are eligible for the old age pension. To me, it would seem very unjust if people in Montreal and Quebec City who worked in the textile mills and shoe factories were looked after at government expense, providing early retirement for them while the people in my constituency, for whom I have a great deal of concern and much appreciation of their difficulties, are not looked after. They are once again in a position where they have been cast aside and the government is taking no particular interest in them. It is tantamount to telling some Canadians that they are expendable. I hope this problem will be resolved when this bill goes to committee.
I believe it must be realized that once legislation of this sort has been passed, there will always be pressure to expand it. An example of this is DREE. This program was introduced in a few small areas of high unemployment and people in adjacent areas want to have it expanded. Then somebody else put up a good case, so we end up now with a system whereby DREE operates virtually Canada-wide.
We will have to be somewhat careful about the pressures which will be put on the government to expand this program, if it is ever put into effect. It will only be natural for unions to push for the same provisions to be applied not only in initially
14032

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
designated regions but also, eventually, across the country. With respect to the 54-year limit, we can expect pressure to be applied to reduce that to perhaps 50 years or even 45 years. That is something about which we will have to be pretty careful when we are looking at the labour adjustment benefit provisions in this bill.
I will say just a few words about the second part of Bill C-78, which deals with amendments to the Canada Labour Code. I spoke earlier on in my presentation, about amendments I would like to have seen and now I will say just a few words about the amendments contained in the bill. The first one deals with notice of termination. At the present time, as I understand it, if an employer has 100 employees, he has to give eight weeks' notice. If he has 100 to 300 employees, he must give 12 weeks' notice. If he has over 300 employees, he must give 16 weeks' notice. Under the new provisions, 16 weeks' notice of termination is required of all employers if they intend to lay off 50 or more workers within a period of, I think, four weeks. My initial reaction to this is that I think soon we will see numerous blocks of 49 workers at a time being laid off from various industrial concerns. However, whatever figure we choose, I suppose there will be that problem.
I listened carefully this afternoon to the submission made by the New Democratic Party. New Democrats always have at heart the concerns of employees, particularly those represented by labour unions. It is my submission that perhaps members of the New Democratic Party go just a little too far. The more difficult we make it for employers, the less likely they are to start up plants or make new investments because they know that if they have to terminate, they have to go through this very expensive process or the process suggested by members of the New Democratic Party. If we make termination requirements too tough, perhaps we will not be doing employees a favour. We will not be doing labour a favour because by decreasing employment opportunities over all we will be making it much more difficult for workers to get jobs in the first place. That is the way the economic system works. I know some members of the New Democratic Party think we can solve all problems by legislation, but we cannot suspend or annul the laws of supply and demand in the long run, and the laws of supply and demand relate to labour in the same way as they do to goods and commodities. That is a caveat I place on some of the remarks made by representatives of the New Democratic Party.
I like the idea of joint planning committees contained in the bill. When an industry is terminated because it can no longer continue and when people have to be laid off, in my opinion it is a good idea if representatives of both the employees and the employer get together and try to work out a system under which terminations can be made the least disruptive as possible and carried out in an orderly manner. I have some reservations about formal legislation dealing with this matter. It would be nice if we could think that by mutual consent employees and employers could enter into such arrangements, but when we pass very specific legislation governing this, we
might on occasion be creating more difficulties than we are solving.
After reading through the provisions of the bill relating to joint planning committees some questions came to my mind. What powers under law would the joint planning committees have? That question is not really addressed in the bill. I would like to refer to Clause 32. The amended Canada Labour Code would read as follows:
60.15 On completion of the development of an adjustment program, the employer shall implement the program and the joint planning committee and any trade union or redundant employees who appointed the members of the committee shall co-operate with and assist the employer in implementing the program.
This gives some authority to the recommendations of the joint planning committee, but it is not at all specific. If the committee makes certain recommendations, there is nothing in the act which says upon whom they should be binding, how they are to be enforced-if, indeed, they are to be enforced- or if they are just recommendations. Proposed Section 60.15 suggests that there is something more than just recommendations. I think that item should be discussed in the committee so that we can find out exactly what should be the powers of a joint planning committee.
These, then, are my observations and recommendations with respect to Bill C-78. As I have said, we support its general concept but we have certain reservations about it. We feel the bill deserves careful consideration in the committee and is capable of considerable improvement. We hope the government will not only proceed with these stop-gap measures but will also make a real effort to promote growth in the economy and to get things going again in this country.
Of particular interest to me and to my constituents in the Northwest Territories-and I have brought this to the attention of Parliament before in respect to desperately needed amendments to the Canada Labour Code-is that the code presently excludes the Northwest Territories from enacting certain types of legislation. I thank Your Honour, and I thank hon. members of the House for their indulgence.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) has just said, our party supports the principle of this bill. We think improvements can be made to the bill, and we look forward to making some of them in the committee.
What we are talking about here is like putting a patch on a tire. We think there should be a new patch on the tire, but the fact that the motor of the car is not working, the body is falling apart and the windows are shattered seems to be irrelevant. All of us are in favour of putting a new patch on a tire when it is not working properly, but-and I hope to get into this in a few moments-this bill is completely oblivious to some of the bigger issues.
I think somebody said earlier that this bill is like trying to put a bit of sand into a hole in a dyke when water is running over the top, around the dyke and through crevices. Here we are, 282 Members of Parliament, focusing on whether we should put a little bit of sand in the dyke. This bit of sand, I
December 14, 1981

am told, amounts to between $2 million and $2.5 million for the fiscal year 1981-82. The government's budget this year will be of the order of $76 billion, and here we are seriously discussing a bill which talks about spending $2.5 million. Considering our industrial and economic problems, this is bizarre and hypocritical and, in the larger scheme of things, an absolute waste of the time of the members of this House.
The bill should have been passed years ago. We should have long ago gone on to the more basic problem of trying to get the Canadian economy working again. I have here The Globe and Mail report on business. By coincidence, it is today's issue. There is a feature on Japan. One whole section is devoted to what the Japanese economy is doing right and, by implication, what the Canadian economy is doing wrong. On the third page there is an article entitled: "Hard work, labour peace help produce the miracle".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member knows he is not supposed to exhibit any document in the House.


David Kilgour: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware of that. I will hide it. May I do that, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member can certainly quote from documents, but not exhibit them.


David Kilgour: The article on "Hard work, labour peace help produce the miracle" talks about the Japanese economic miracle which has produced one of the highest standards of living in the world with almost no unemployment, an economy where there are desperately short of people to work. They are worried about their labour force working when they are too old. In Canada, we are trying to bring in a measure to assist those who lose their jobs because of our policy of deindustrialization in Canada, which the Liberals cram down the throats of Canadians wanting to work. We end up with measures like the one we are discussing. I quote from that article:
When asked to outline the key features of their labour-management system, Japanese businessmen usually mention several: the enterprise union concept; the lifetime employment system, and consensus decision-making. All three go together.
Why we cannot have some of these concepts in Canada is beyond me. We should have had them 15 years ago. A few pages later is an article headed: "Japanese system feels strain of changing work force", and I quote:
The Japanese work force is shrinking and the age of the Japanese worker is increasing, a trend that has Japanese companies worried.
That is hardly a problem we have to worry about in Canada with the way our economy is managed. On the next page is an article headlined: "Export curbs put brakes on Japanese auto production". It deals with some of the problems in the Japanese auto industry, which I do not have to tell hon. members is virtually flooding the Canadian market.
To digress for a moment, I am told that a substantial number of Lada cars are now being sold in Canada. These cars
Labour Adjustment Benefits
are manufactured in the Soviet Union. I believe they market for about $5,000 each. My information is that that represents approximately a full year's salary for the average Russian. That is the minimum. Those people across the way who are allowing the Lada cars to flood our market could be questioned under GATT as to whether that is an artificially low price. At the same time those opposite bring in a measure to help people who will lose their jobs in the auto industry in Canada with a type of retraining.
On another page we find an article entitled: "Japan's industrial success spurred by selective R and D". I quote:
"Research makes the difference," says the motto on shopping bags with the Sony label. It is an aphorism that helps account for the great leap forward not only at Sony Corp., rebounding from a slump that depressed sales and profits in the 1970s, but also at other high technology industries.
I need not say that R and D in Canada is desperately inferior by comparison. After passing this bill, we could spend our time seeing what we can do to encourage R and D. Further on is another article entitled: "Long term economic health tied to handling of surplus". 1 quote:
The Japanese economy will pick up in 1982 after a relatively sluggish performance this year, leading Japanese economists say. But its long-term health may depend on the country's ability to correct-without damage to itself-an enormous surplus on trade with the United States and Europe.
That is an economy dealing with its problems, dealing with them well and benefiting its people accordingly. I could go on. Suffice it to say that this one issue of the paper talks primarily about what the Japanese economy is doing well. There is an interesting chart in this paper which mentions what Canada imports from the Japanese and vice versa. I think it is fair to say that we export such things as meat, wheat, raw materials of various sorts and coal. In turn, we import from the Japanese products such as fabricated materials, steel, iron, cars, auto parts, telecommunications material, film, plates and that sort of thing.
One does not have to take a course in economics to know that if you want people to work after the age of 50 or under the age of 20, you are better to encourage those things which have a high technology and high labour side to them. This is an almost classical example, with Canadians exporting coal and the Japanese shipping back to us all manner of automobiles.
What are we doing in this bill? We are trying to help those who lose their job because of competition from Japan and other economies. We are trying to re-train them to cut fish, dig coal, cut trees or other things for which most are obviously not suited. I suggest we have the whole thing backwards. Similar to Lewis Caroll's "Alice in Wonderland", we are a bunch of serious people considering how to help those who are laid off, instead of considering measures that will get people working, the young, old and middle-aged.
There is no point repeating the arguments made by my colleagues. Obviously we are in favour of an aid program for mature employees who have been laid off as a result of plant shut-downs. Which Member of Parliament could oppose something that will help people in their fifties or early sixties who

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
have lost their job to be retrained and receive some benefits? Many of these people have given a lifetime of work to a particular firm or occupation. One would have to be a sadist to not want to help such people. I might mention in passing that it is a pity that many of the affected groups such as the Canadian Labour Congress, the various firms and employee associations were not consulted before the bill was presented to us. I hope they will have an opportunity in committee.
Let me refer for a moment to the unemployment situation in Canada. Our unemployment rate is in excess of 8 per cent. I forget exactly how much in excess. Most would agree there are roughly a million Canadians actively looking for work today. As we know, many of these people are young. However, there are many in their thirties, forties and fifties. It is an absolute tragedy that the government is actively encouraging higher and higher rates of unemployment in Canada. I recall a week or so ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) saying that we cannot worry about the rate of unemployment going higher, that we have to go on fighting inflation. The minister has introduced a budget which does nothing but encourage inflation.
I think I just mentioned that the hardest hit group of people unemployed is those between the ages of 15 and 24. As mentioned before, the number of jobs in Ontario decreased by, I believe it was, 140,000 in the month preceding December 9. From an employment standpoint, the situation in many parts of Canada, though not in Alberta, is absolutely critical. I have the figures in front of me but I will keep them out of your sight, Mr. Speaker. They were recently published by the OECD. They refer to the 24 countries that are members of OECD. For instance, in the area of industrial production for Canada, the tip of the graph for the year 1981 points virtually straight down, compared to that of the United States and that of Japan-Austria is bad-Finland, Norway, Belgium and even the United Kingdom.
When we turn to unemployment, we see that the situation in Canada-and again I am comparing the trends in the charts- is bad compared to that in the United States, Australia, Belgium, Austria, Finland, West Germany, Ireland, Holland, Norway, Sweden and even the United Kingdom. I should add that these figures appear to be approximately four months old.
Looking at total trade-and I am doing this just by a test of the eye-on a trend basis, Canada is bad compared to the United States, Japan, Australia, Sweden, France, Italy, Holland and Germany. And so on it goes. Canada is bad compared to virtually every industrialized country, at least in the OECD, whether one looks at agriculture, manufacturing or exports. It is self-evident that the Canadian economy is performing as badly as that of any country in the western advanced industrial world.
Given that fact, one might think-and I think everyone in the Chamber and every Canadian knows-maybe we would be trying to do something to find out why things are working in a country such as West Germany, Japan or many others. Why
are things going so badly in Canada? Not a chance. We are here discussing a bill to help people by grants or retraining who are laid off. The reason the economy is as bad as it is is completely ignored. At a time like this, what do we do? Three weeks ago we introduced a budget which creates nothing but disaster for every conceivable sphere in the Canadian economy except the Canadian Bankers' Association and the Business Council on National Issues. Mr. Speaker, if you can tell me one other group in Canadian society that has one good word to say about the budget, then I would like to know its name.


David Michael Collenette: There will be 12 million taxpayers who will benefit.


David Kilgour: I hear from the genius from York East that 12 million taxpayers will benefit. I can assure the genius from York East that if there were an election held today-and I really wish there were-he would not be back with us six weeks from now. Why does the hon. member not call an election on the budget if he thinks it is such a hot budget?


An hon. Member:: There are not enough members here.


David Kilgour: I have them grouped here by people such as home owners and renters. What about the renters in the constituency of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) who will see their rents probably double in the next two years?


David Michael Collenette: That is because of the government of Bill Davis.


David Kilgour: What about the home owners in York East who will see their mortgage payments in some cases almost double, if they have not already doubled this year?


David Michael Collenette: Not true.


David Kilgour: I would like to see the figures to prove it. If the hon. member can prove it to me, I would be happy to see the figures.


David Michael Collenette: You have to bring the proof.


David Kilgour: I would like to know one single feature in this infamous budget that does anything to help pensioners or people who are on fixed incomes. I notice that even the genius from York East is silent on that point.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the small business community, which incidentally were creating about two or three new jobs in Canada until recently, are apoplectic about the budget. The Canadian organization for small business, for instance, was quoted as saying that the animosity of the tax policy of the Minister of Finance for people in business is obvious. The Canadian Federation for Independent Business termed the budget "a very frightening document". It has been miscast as a Robin Hood budget. In fact, it takes from business and from middle-class and gives to the government.
In fact, I do not think anyone has been as incensed at this budget as the members of the small business community who
December 14, 1981

have been creating jobs better than anyone in our economy for several years. It is so obvious that one might ask: "Why are you telling us it is a bad budget?" Everyone in Canada except the hon. member for York East is now fully aware that it is a bad budget.
I refer now to one article in a recent issue which I received today. It points out that the lazy Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-and I challenge the Chair to name any hon. member in the House of Commons who is lazier mentally or physically than the Minister of Finance. I seriously challenge those members opposite to convince me that the Minister of Finance had the energy to read over his budget speech before he read it in the House on November 12.
Lawyers have pointed out that the budget contained a $700 million error in its calculation of the cost to the provinces of reduced federal contributions to shared cost programs. Normally people do not think lawyers need any defending in the House or elsewhere, but I am told that the 30,000 lawyers across Canada who will be taxed by this budget on work in progress have something like a billion dollars of work in progress which will be affected by this budget. The lawyers who represent companies and who bill on an interim basis do not find any difficulty with that-or less trouble-but lawyers who act for plaintiffs and lawyers whose clients are not so prosperous will be hit very hard by this.
I received a letter from a lawyer from Edmonton who has, in fact, run twice as a provincial Liberal candidate of my province saying that he would be forced either to break the law if this budget is enacted or he will have to consider leaving the practice of law. Incidentally, this lawyer acts for plaintiffs and rarely acts for clients who can pay on an interim basis. To say that I do not think he will be voting Liberal in the next election may not mean very much because most of the Liberals in Alberta have already been appointed to the bench; but that is one practising Liberal lawyer in my province who is sickened by the budget.
I also say that there is not one single, solitary individual in Canada, except for the member for York East, the Minister of Finance, the Canadian Bankers' Association and the Business Council on National Issues, who has anything good to say about the budget. Let me look for a moment at-


David Michael Collenette: At the bill.


David Kilgour: The bill is so picayune, when we should be dealing with a range of other problems, that it is an insult even to the intelligence of the hon. member for York East.
Let me talk about the way in which the government approaches unemployment and creates it. Last summer VIA Rail services were cut by 20 per cent. As the House is aware, this party had a task force which went across the country and heard members of affected unions and affected employees in 13 cities. There were about 320 submissions from different groups and individuals. I should like to refer to some of the things those individuals who will lose or who have already lost
Labour Adjustment Benefits
jobs had to say about the compassion of the government opposite. For example, let me refer to Halifax, which suffers from unemployment more than most parts of the country. Ralph O'Donnell and Warren Hutt of the Canadian Brotherhood of Rail, Transport and General Workers said that the elimination of the Atlantic train would cost at least 240 jobs for people who are presently employed with VIA Rail and CN Rail in Halifax alone. I wonder whether this bill will affect any of those 240 employees, Mr. Minister of Labour?


David Michael Collenette: Address the Chair.


David Kilgour: I am sorry, through you, Mr. Speaker. A VIA employee told the task force that anyone in Halifax with less than five years seniority would wind up on the lay-off list. Will the bill help these people?
In Moncton we were told by Robert Dennis of the CBRT and GW that numerous VIA employees, formerly with CN and CP, had agreed in good faith to give up their right to transfer their seniority back to those companies. Now they will lose their jobs. Will the bill help any one of these individuals? We were told that none of these people who would lose their jobs in Moncton would be permitted to transfer to the Wind-sor-Quebec City corridor in which new jobs would be created. Mr. Dennis said that the affected employees "feel they have been betrayed by the Government of Canada". Also we were told by one of the councillors of the city of Moncton that as an indirect affect 300 residents of Moncton who earn their living in real estate are now all but inactive because of the depressed market created by the VIA Rail situation. No one opposite seems to have taken the slightest interest in the people in Moncton and elsewhere in the maritimes affected as a direct result of the federal government action last summer.
In Quebec we were told by Herve Villeneuve of the United Transportation Union the following:
After 38 years in rail passenger service, I'm to go back on freight trains and be on call seven days a week.
This is the kind of compassion and concern displayed by the Liberal Party which sits in majority government today.
Also we were told by the Canadian Railway Labour Association:
Otherwise, VIA Rail, for all its rhetoric, may turn out to be nothing more than a thinly-disguised-
Unfortunately the rest of the quotation is missing, but I think the association was referring to a thinly-disguised means to terminate rail passenger service in Canada.
We were told on the prairies by the same railway brotherhood the following:
The CNR has already indicated that there are between 200 and 250 employees (in Winnipeg) whose positions will be redundant as of November 15.
I wonder whether the bill will help any of those people the government has caused to be laid off in Winnipeg.
The Winnipeg Labour Council, representing 115 local unions and over 30,000 employees, told us that the VIA Rail cuts would cost them "over 500 jobs in the initial phase of the new government program". It also mentioned other jobs which

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
will be lost later as a result of spin-off effects. I wonder whether the bill will help any of those people.
In British Columbia we were told by Ralph Frisk of the CNR Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Union the following:
-we are extremely concerned that approximately 640 jobs, those of our brothers in related CNR unions, will be lost. In some towns where the CNR is the major employer, these cuts will cause great hardship.
These examples demonstrate the hypocrisy of the government pretending to worry about Canadians at the same time as laying off a minimum of 1,600 people this summer by disembowelling VIA Rail. It is beyond my comprehension, but there is not a level of hypocrisy beyond which hon. members opposite will not go. If the hon. member for York East could name one example, I would be delighted. It has just been brought to my attention by one of my colleagues that the hon. member for York East recently said that the election was 18 months ago. In fact it was 22 months ago. That kind of mathematics will get the government into a lot of trouble, including the $700 million error in the budget calculations.
The mayor of Kamloops told the task force the following:
Some two dozen jobs will be lost to the community... The impact of this move will mean a minimum of $500,000 annual payroll loss to the city.
One does not have to be particularly wise to know that if the government kills jobs in a community such as Kamloops, in many cases people will leave Kamloops. Why would it not have been better to have left the train running through Kamloops, to have left all those people working happily and hopefully living productive lives, rather than killing so many jobs? If the government had left the train running through Kamloops, perhaps we would not have to discuss a bill which attempts to help people who lost their jobs; perhaps we would not have to be engaged in a steady deindustrialization of Canada, as I have attempted to indicate in my remarks:
In Vancouver, William Apps, regional vice-president of CBRT, said:
VIA Rail Canada has a record of providing a high standard of service and much of the credit is due to the employees who serve the public in a highly professional manner. These are the people employed in ticket offices, baggage rooms, and on-board employees performing the on-train services such as refreshment, coach and sleeping car service.
I agree with Mr. Apps. Most of the people who lost their jobs with VIA Rail were highly competent and dedicated employees. Where are these people today? As we were told time and time again, undoubtedly they are at Manpower offices trying to find new jobs. Many of those people have well served Canadians and their employers for 25 or 30 years, only to find that it is the blasted government which has put them out of work. What other civilized country in the world has a government which would cold-bloodedly and on no economic or social basis whatsoever undertake to throw 1,600 people out of work? The government does not even pretend to have a reason to justify it. It is the public be damned. If Commodore Vanderbilt did it, Mr. Speaker, you and I and every member opposite would denounce him from every soapbox in the country. I submit that these people opposite are just as heartless as Commodore Vanderbilt. Every one of them rises to speak in favour of it and votes to approve it. Every one of them echoes the Minister of Transport. They seem to say, "It is only people. We are going to give them a grant to retrain them as a result of this bill. How can we feel sorry for the 1,600 and more people who lost their jobs with VIA Rail? We will give them grants-although in some cases that may destroy their self-respect. We are going to leave them at home all day while their families have to go out and earn the money to pay the rent or the mortgage." Hon. members opposite are humane, we believe.
I think the case can be made that there has never been a more heartless, less compassionate government in our history than this one. The problem with VIA Rail is but one of a legion of examples I could give.
Hon. members opposite do not understand anything about economics. I have often said that if every Canadian could take a course in economics, not a single Liberal would be re-elected to any future Canadian Parliament.
Last year about $7.5 billion left Canada as the result of Canadians and foreigners taking their money out. They do not want to leave money here to build plants or create jobs or for any productive use; they want to take it to the United States, West Germany, Switzerland or some place where they know there is some economic sense and where their currency will have some value.


David Michael Collenette: Tax havens!


David Kilgour: The hon. member for York East just does not understand anything, Mr. Speaker. The point is that the government's policies are making every other place a tax haven, whereas people would rather keep their money in Canada. People are taking their savings and pensions out of the country. They are selling their homes here to buy homes in Arizona or some such place. All this obviously causes enormous problems for the construction industry and for our balance of payments. It goes without saying that it also causes unemployment.
This party believes in policies and measures designed to attract foreign capital, not policies that will discourage it at every turn. This party believes in policies which would attract more people into Canada with the skills and the training that would be of benefit to the economy, causing it to grow.
Let us take Jamaica as an example, Mr. Speaker. For eight or nine years Michael Manley used the same kind of policies there as this government has been using. He managed to take a perfectly healthy, prospering and relatively happy economy and country to the point where it had an inflation rate of 35 per cent and an unemployment rate of 35 per cent per annum. He drove foreign investment out of Jamaica with his own brand of xenophobia, of which we have not a little in this country, unfortunately. He drove people out of the country and ended up with an unemployment rate of 35 per cent and an
December 14, 1981

inflation rate of 35 per cent. Eventually the majority of the people of Jamaica had the sense to throw him out of office.
At the weekend I read in the newspaper that Mr. Seaga has brought the inflation rate down to 6 per cent, but I do not know what the unemployment rate is although I believe it has been substantially reduced. Mr. Seaga spoke of attracting investment from 800 businesses which had expressed interest in investing in his country, so money and investment are flooding back to the island. I have never been to Jamaica but I understand it is a magnificent place. When money comes back, jobs come back and with proper control, inflation goes down. I hope that before long Mr. Seaga and the people of Jamaica will experience virtually no unemployment and no inflation.
If all the things that would encourage inflation were listed, it would be seen that this government has done most of them. If all the things that would encourage unemployment were listed, it would be seen that this government has done most of them too. If a list were made of everything that would drive Canadian money out of the country, it would be seen that this government has done most of them. It is dreadfully wrong for a country with the talents, resources and education we have to try to disembowel itself, economically speaking, year after year after year.
A concrete example of this has occurred in my own community in Alberta, Mr. Speaker. A company there has become the largest producer of rigs for the oil industry throughout the world in the last ten years. It was started in Edmonton, it grew up there, and it is now one of the success stories of western Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, of 1,500 employees, ony 100 now work in Canada while the remainder, I gather, work in the United States, Europe or elsewhere. There is no good reason why the majority of those 1,500 employees should not be working in Ontario, Quebec or some place else in Canada. Our economic policies, which have been compounded-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy)-Tourism-Importance of eventual participation of Quebec in Federal-Provincial Conference; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)- Pipelines-Extension of natural gas pipeline to east coast, b) Delay in construction; the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky)-The Budget-Effect on former CNR and VIA
Labour Adjustment Benefits
Rail employees, b) Request that minister intercede on behalf of retired railway employees.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia that Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, when considering Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, I am reminded of the reactions I have experienced to this institution and to the government since coming here after the election of February 18, 1980. This party will oppose the bill, at least at this stage. It seems to me that it is another example of bureaucratization-


Mr. Blenkarn:: Right on!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: -and the pile up of paper. If anything, it is a make-work project for more and more bureaucrats. For the thousands of employees trying to find their way through the system, for the hundreds of union representatives and shop stewards who are already overburdened in trying to steer the people they represent through the bureaucratic maze of workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and the myriad of other regulations that seem calculated to confuse rather help ordinary people in the country, it is a nightmare.
It will also be a pain in the derriere for hundreds of managers dealing with the problems of industrial relations, workers' involvement, and rights to unemployment insurance. It seems designed to confuse and confound ordinary Canadians who find themselves in dire straits, if not worse, as a result of the actions or inactions of the government.
Under the heading "Designation of Industries" Clause 3(1) of the bill reads as follows:
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the Governor in Council may, by order, designate any industry either generally or with respect to any region of Canada.
The bill is purportedly designed to assist Canadians in industries which are hard hit in these difficult times. I will use the forest industry as an example because it is the one with which I am most familiar. One would think that this bill should at least allow the government to assist the people in that industry. However, in reading on, it seems to me that, by definition, they are apparently excluded from any possible protection under this piece of legislation. If any hon. member opposite is perhaps a little brighter, a little more innovative, or

Labour Adjustment Benefits
whatever, perhaps that hon. member could enlighten us to the contrary. However, under "Designation of Industries", Clause 3(2) states the criteria for general designation as follows:
An industry may be designated generally pursuant to subsection (1) if the Governor in Council is satisfied that
(a)	the industry in Canada generally is undergoing significant economic adjustment of a non-cyclical nature by reason of import competition or by reason of industrial restructuring implemented pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada to encourage such restructuring;


John Horton McDermid: Or by reason of insanity.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The board that will administer this program will be politically appointed by the governor in council, by the cabinet. Whoever is appointed will be a political appointee.


Mr. MacBain:: We're going to appoint you.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It does not amount to the kind of responsible democratic structure where labour appoints someone and management appoints someone, or anything else of the kind; we are talking about straight political hacks. I suspect that hon. members opposite will not admit that what the government has certainly been doing to the forest industry is "industrial restructuring implemented pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada". We may perceive it as being that. However, I rather doubt that those hon. members over there will admit to any such thing.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Never!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I certainly suspect that they will net define the problems now taking place in the forest industry from one end of the country to another as being non-cyclical in nature. It is a cycle within the business cycle. It is a regular one. It happens every few years. This one happens to be much worse than the norm because it has been encouraged, abetted and, in part, created by that government; but it will not admit to it, so it will not be covered under that definition either. Therefore, we find that one of the largest industries in Canada, one which has been harder hit than almost any other, will be exempt.
Perhaps some hon. members may say that the enabling provision will be found under Clause 3(2), or Clause 3(3), which states the criteria for regional designation. However, under Clause 3(3), we find much the same thing:
An industry may be designated with respect to any region of Canada pursuant to subsection (1) if the Governor in Council is satisfied that (a) the industry in that region is undergoing significant economic adjustment of a non-cyclical nature;
If I am mistaken, perhaps hon. members opposite will enlighten me. However, I suspect the government will very strongly state that what we are facing in the forest industry is a cyclical problem. Will any hon. members opposite deny that? Will they say that it is an "industrial restructuring implemented pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada"? Do any hon. members want to say that? They do not seem to want to say that, either. Therefore, I can only
assume that my guess is correct and that the government has no intention of providing any extra benefits or any relaxation of regulations. I assume my guess is correct if, in fact, that is what this means, and I have my doubts.
Thousands and thousands of Canadians in British Columbia, New Brunswick and elsewhere, right across the country, who are facing such dire straits within the forest industry and many other industries and now find themselves to be out of work due to cyclical markets which are being aggravated by their effect upon working people across the country, will receive no benefits.
Something else which disturbs me relates to the word "adjustment" as I find it consistently repeated throughout Bill C-78. At page 6, under Clause 10, the bill states:
The Board may certify an employee named in an application under section 9 as being eligible to apply to the Commission for labour adjustment benefits if
(a)	he was laid off;
(b)	the Canadian establishment from which he was laid off is part of a designated industry;
That contains the obvious limitations to which I earlier referred. It states further:
(c)	the number of employees at the Canadian establishment referred to in paragraph (b) was reduced as a result of lay-offs, in any twelve month period including the employee's effective date of lay-off, by at least ten per cent or fifty employees, whichever is the lesser; and
(d)	his lay-off resulted from the economic adjustment referred to in subsection
3(2) or (3), as the case may be.


John Horton McDermid: Economic adjustment!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Economic adjustment! I know that the year 1984 is not very far away, but it seems to me that considering the amount of new adjustments we will be making which will affect people in the Canadian labour force, we should perhaps have waited a couple more years so that we would at least be in tune with the vocabulary suggested by George Orwell: "newspeak". The bill before us is full of "newspeak": "seasonally adjusted", "economically adjusted", "non-cyclically adjusted". These are all terms which appear throughout this entire bill.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Well done.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I would plead with and ask the government to take seriously the fact that Canadian working people are tired of being adjusted, whether economically, seasonally, noncyclically, or vertically or horizontally, for that matter. What they want is to find some employment with decent wages in order to make their contribution to this country and to their own families.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I have been looking hard at this bill. I have searched it and searched it. I want to believe that hon. members opposite are people of good will, but it is hard to find evidence. I want to say that a number of days ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) asked, concerning another matter, "Why does not anyone say thank
December 14, 1981

you?" I would love to say it; but try as I might, I cannot find anything for which people in my industry, the forest industry, can be thankful. Other than those political appointees and the thousands of bureaucrats who will be required to shuffle paper around to make sense of this matter, I cannot find anyone else who has much for which to be thankful as a result of the great lengths of imagination to which the minister and his staff must have gone in order to produce this bill. It is mindboggling.
I would also like to refer to Clause 14(2) on page 11 of the bill, concerning work-sharing, agreements, which states:
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the weekly insurable earnings of a qualified employee for any week of employment under a work sharing agreement approved pursuant to section 37 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, is the lesser of
(a)	the total amount the employee would have earned for that week if he had worked a full working week for the employer he worked for under the agreement; and
(b)	the maximum weekly insurable earnings, as determined pursuant to that Act, for that week.


John Horton McDermid: Say that again?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Apart from the difficulty that we laymen, who are supposedly here to govern experts, may have in determining just what all of this means, many people, including myself, who are very active in relation to workers and their problems from one end of the country to the other, are very leery of any government, be it of any political stripe, which attempts to interfere in what should be a matter to be determined by management and employees within a given company or industry. If the government, by this measure, is attempting to take unto itself the power to determine whether to encourage people in an industry to adopt what is sometimes called work sharing-I prefer to call it unemployment sharing-then I think that is a very dangerous approach. It has long been my feeling and that of many others, I might say, in the Canadian labour force, particularly those who are privileged to represent people in an elective capacity within that labour force-


John Horton McDermid: We all do!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: -that it is fundamentally wrong to take away or encourage the taking away of rights which are enjoyed by someone, by virtue of written inclusion in a collective agreement or contract, without the mutual consent of management and the union, and without the consent of the affected individual. Even if management and union agree to take away such rights, that union and that management have no right even to act together to remove those rights without the employee's consent if a contract or collective agreement states that an employee has certain rights. The government certainly does not have the right, unless the individual affected consents. When you have an industrial operation, or any other type of employment, where the people, due to their seniority, have the right to remain employed in a period when some employees are laid off, no one has the right to remove that right or to attempt to encourage the removal of that right unless those persons expressly consent.
Labour Adjustment Benefits
I know the concept of job ownership is not one universally accepted in this country as yet. People talk about the rights that go with the investment of capital, but people who invest their labour power and their lives for 10, 20 or 30 years, often at considerable risk to their health, do have a right to job ownership, within definitions accepted by large numbers within Canadian society, and a proprietary right in that job as well. They will defend those rights against management, government and, if necessary, against their own union representatives if those representatives fail to do their jobs as the collective agreement outlines them. I suggest it is very risky and very wrong for the government to even encourage those people to sacrifice those rights unless they are willing to sacrifice themselves for what they deem to be the better good of their fellows.
I am also upset with the method of designation of the regions or industries and how those designations are to be made. Anybody with that kind of power should be selected on some more fair basis than simply by the governor in council or the cabinet. It should be so structured under any piece of legislation that attempts to bring in a change such as does this bill that representatives who are duly appointed, selected, elected, or whatever, by the various component groups which make up Canadian industry should be automatically on such a board, rather than having its members selected at a political whim. The board itself is politically appointed, and the designations will cause a great deal of difficulty because they are left so open. As I understand it, there are only to be some four to six designations per year because of the shortage of funds- and I may have something to say about that later-will cause a great deal of difficulty. There will be a great deal of flexibility of choice by this politically appointed board as to which communities receive the benefits. I presume, even though I am skeptical, that there are some real benefits attached to such flexibility, but there will be difficulty with regard to the selection of those communities that will derive this government's self-defined benefits.
I looked to other funds and programs which have been set up by this government, such as the Western Development Fund, to get an indication of how this power would be used, particularly if the choices to be made are strictly political, made by politically appointed groups. There were two projects in western Canada last year funded from the Western Development Fund. One happened to be within the constituency of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), and the other happened to be within the riding of a former minister of the environment, in Kamloops, and involved the native Band from which that minister came. That is rather suspect, with all the hoop-la surrounding the fact that this fund was for regional development. I begin to wonder, about this especially in view of the fact that I believe the five regions that have been mentioned to date under this program are all within ridings represented by members of the party which forms the government. Having that in view and the other experience, I am more than just a little suspicious and

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
leery as to the intent and practices which this board and this program will follow in the allocation of priorities.
There are a number of other matters I should like to refer to that are of grave concern to us in considering the legislation before us. The program is restricted to a relatively small amount of money to be used in selective areas after the damage has been done. There is a maximum of four to six communities to be designated at one time for benefits to be paid in the total amount of approximately $175 million, minus $90 million which is intended for the companies themselves, leaving $85 million for unemployed workers. If you divide that by the five years to which the total amount is supposed to apply, you end up with $5.6 million. Divided by the six communities mentioned, this works out to approximately $800,000 per community per year. I understand Windsor is one of the communities mentioned, and $800,000 will not go that far in a city that is as affected as that community has been in the past year, and things do not look any rosier in times to come-not in the immediate future, in any case, though I wish they did.
The program has not been set in the context of full employment programs and massive industrial restructuring. When we look at the many serious problems facing the industries that may come within the ambit of this program-and, as I said, this does not touch the forestry industry-we begin to see the scale of the job to be done. This measure takes place in the absence of positive government economic activity.
The bill also avoids confronting the need for active labour market policies such as the levy grants system being proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress and placed before the Allmand task force and elsewhere.
The $ 15 million community employment program will be of the Canada Works welfare type. When we are talking about industries in which people are quite properly getting wages and salaries in the range of $8 to $14 per hour, to suggest the welfare type of make-work program as a reasonable substitute for people suffering from the inaction of this government is scandalous, to say the least.
There is still no provision within the bill for accountability in respect of plant closures or lay-offs to a job protection board or any other type of agency.
The benefit levels for older workers under the labour adjustment benefits program will be lowered to bring them into line with current unemployment insurance benefits, from 66 per cent down to 60 per cent of earnings.
Again, the cabinet will designate the communities, so the decisions will be highly political. There are no specific guidelines for designation, or procedures for applications by communities that could be reviewed by some independent body. The program will affect only a few communities, maybe as few as ten over the next few years.
Also, industrial assistance may very well reward inefficiency and lack of investment, or it may be given to an industry that has already planned to invest.

Finally, no conditions have been established to ensure long term commitments after federal assistance is granted. Surely we have learned enough from some of the problems which have developed as a result of DREE to look again. It has even been suggested by some hon. members from the other side- maybe it is about time they started to speak up again-that steps be taken to ensure that where the government provides concrete financial assistance, there must be some type of watchdog capacity, if not equity, along with some input to ensure the continuing development and compliance of those industries. The government as well as the communities involved should have some say in return for the dollars which have been invested by the taxpayer. The taxpayers have a right to expect a return on their investment. When taxpayers invest their money in an industry, they should have representation from someone, appointed on behalf of the government, to look after the public interest. These representatives may be employees or community representatives within local governments, such as a city councillor or someone from the village or regional government, acting for the government, in order to bring back to industry some degree of social responsibility. Some social responsibility still rests with employers who at least live in the community in which they have their business, so that they are accountable to their shareholders and responsible for ensuring that people will not be cast out of the labour force unless there is absolutely no other alternative. In these days of multinational conglomerates, trans-national and even large national concerns, there is not that social responsibility which we must now begin to revive. We must have some kind of community or employee input-not necessarily control-to ensure that if those corporations must resort to dislocation, that information will be advanced to those people who are immediately affected. With that information, these people may then influence their communities, the media and the companies involved to take a more socially responsible course and to balance that social responsibility with the responsibility which these companies properly and understandably have to their shareholders.
This legislation does not begin to consider that. Although this is not the major objective of the bill, surely it is not too early-although it may be too late-to start looking in that direction. This bill should ensure that the kind of social responsibility that once existed under local ownership is revived in some areas of our economy.
Again, no conditions have been established to ensure a long term commitment after federal assistance is granted. The bill provides for no input into management in return for federal equity and in return for the federal taxpayers' dollars.
Finally, I would like to say that I am disappointed that the federal government has failed to devise a bill which provides for more understanding. I repeat that the working people of Canada are totally frustrated by the maze of regulations which now exist in the UIC system, as are their employers and representatives. I believe that this bill only adds to the maze and will make it even more difficult for people to understand.
December 14, 1981

Canadians who are privileged to have union representation are often able to succeed in their appeals to the commission through boards of referees, six to eight times more often than those who do not have the benefit of union representation. Many Canadians who have strong unions will be able to find their way through the maze and to receive protection, but those thousands of other Canadians who do not have that representation will be totally lost in their attempts to claim their legitimate rights under the provisions of this bill.
I am disappointed by the fact that this legislation exists in a vacuum. I believe that the government must re-examine its motivation and its conscience and ultimately find the will and determination to take positive action-not patchwork and band-aid-to mitigate the effects of its own policies to date which have so severely hamstrung the Canadian economy and have driven hundreds of thousands of proud working Canadians into bankruptcy and unemployment.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the minister on the assumption of his duties and wish him well in helping the workers of Canada.
This bill reflects Labour Canada's participation in the $350 million industry and labour adjustment program announced in January of this year by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia).
One of the main features of the bill, an early retirement pension for employees unable to obtain alternative employment, has been in operation in the clothing, textile and footwear industries for several years. The bill permits the immediate extension of this provision to qualified persons in communities in Ontario and Quebec and Sydney, Nova Scotia, as well as to industries which are, or are to be, designated under the program.
Job creation, job-finding, mobility and training are measures in place to assist unemployed workers and will now be joined with early retirement as a last resort for helping affected workers. The industries involved are those which are subject to import competition or are encouraged by government policies and programs to restructure their operations. In case of economic pressures, the cabinet can designate industries in specific geographic areas for these benefits.
The program supplies a slender safety net for workers in the 54 to 65 year old age group who are employed in the selected industries of clothing, textiles and footwear. As well, it makes special mention of 30-year workers in the 50 to 54 year old age group.
But what about the majority of the Canadian work force which is employed by small business, farming, forestry, mining and fishing? The Georgia Pacific Veneer plant at McAdam, New Brunswick, is the only industry in the village. It closed its doors this year and there is no alternative employment for its
Labour Adjustment Benefits
workers. Are these workers to be excluded because they do not make textiles or footwear?
Over half the lumber mills in the Atlantic provinces are closed and hundreds of people are unemployed. American export markets are closed and the whole housing and building industries are in recession. Are the workers in our mills-most of them employing less than 50 people-not to be eligible because their industry is not identified or because the cabinet has not identified their geographic area for benefits?
I propose that the built-in discrimination against all industrial and commercial employees, farmers, fishermen, mill employees, miners and tradesmen be removed and that all workers be treated equally under this legislation.
In the Atlantic provinces, Canadians earn two-thirds of the national average in wages. The industrial plants and business operations are small. The area that suffers the most from unemployment, regional disparity and employment loss is not as qualified to receive benefits under this bill as are the more prosperous parts of Canada which have larger mills, larger plants, and employ larger numbers, areas where most of Canada's textile, clothing and footwear plants are situated. They also have most of Canada's Members of Parliament and cabinet ministers.
The type of industries which are the focus of this bill should be expanded to remove the discrimination against the Atlantic provinces. What about workers in provinces like New Brunswick which have resource-based economies requiring more workers at one time of the year than another, where continuity in a general trade such as lumbering is easier to prove than in a mill with a single employee?
The intention is to help industries adjust to competition from imported products and government induced structural changes; it should also help industries in the Atlantic provinces that must also compete with products of central Canadian industries established and protected for many years with tariff walls and government policies that deprived the Atlantic provinces of more advantageous trade with their natural trading partners in the New England States and along the Atlantic seaboard. It should help all workers who are subjected to the indignity of unemployment through no fault of their own and who must look to this bill as a safety net of last resort.
I commend the parliamentary secretary for his clear explanation of the steps leading to benefits and a description of the benefits themselves. At page 12611 of Hansard for November 6, 1981, he said 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 a week. Therefore, the maximum labour adjustment benefit is $189 a week, he indicated. The benefits are reduced by 60 cents for each dollar of income from employment while registered under the program and one dollar for each dollar of income from other government sources or employment preceding the benefit period. That is the maximum benefit. When all these deduc-

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
tions are made from the middle range or lower-income base, we are at the lower edge of prudence, facing the poverty line.
The bill proposes another board, the Labour Adjustment Review Board, to certify that the lay-offs involve an establishment that belongs to a designated industry and affect 10 per cent of the manpower or 50 workers of the establishment, whichever is less; that the board is convinced the lay-offs stem from a serious upheaval in the industry; that the claimant is between 54 and 65 years of age, has exhausted all unemployment insurance benefits and has had at least 10 years' employment in the industry in the last 15 years-there is more-and that the claimant is a Canadian and has a Manpower certificate showing he has no employment opportunities or a much inferior job. If the board so certifies, the worker qualifies- that is, if the worker is still alive after jumping all those hurdles.
Can hon. members imagine the bureaucracy needed to sustain this operation? And then the cabinet in its political wisdom can simply identify industries in certain geographic locations where the program then applies.
An easier way with less bureaucratic and political involvement is to make the program applicable to all workers in the 54-65 age group who are the unwilling victims of permanent lay-offs and for whom there is no other employment opportunity.
In the Maritimes we have the spectacle of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) cutting the guts out of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia by cancelling over half of their rail passenger services and about 80 per cent of the CN Express operations, and none of the workers in these industries qualifies for this program. None of our woods workers, farmers, lumbermen, carpenters, plumbers or electricians qualifies. And yet every one of these laid-off workers can point to high interest rates or, in the case of the railways, to misguided government policies for their lay-offs. Do they meet the 10 per cent rule? They surely do. Unemployment is our primary industries exceeds 20 per cent, and in some of them it is more than 50 per cent. Have they worked in the industry for 10 of the last 15 years? Yes, but perhaps not for the same employer. Do they qualify? No. The industry is not designated, and neither is the geographic area. They should be. The bottom line is this: industries in all of the Atlantic provinces should be designated, the rules made more flexible for primary industries and all workers who qualify receive their benefits administered locally through community employment centres now in existence, without an expensive new board and a new bureaucracy.
What about spouses? We surely at long last are on our way to permitting their full participation in the Canada Pension Plan now that the equal rights amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has been included in the Constitution. What about this program? Where do they fit here? It seems discriminatory, and it should not be. We should at long last admit that a spouse contributes greatly to the breadwinner's ability to earn income and is deserving of at least full survivorship benefits in this and, indeed, all our programs.
In its Part III amendments, the bill requires employers in federal jurisdictions to negotiate fair termination settlements with workers or unions. The minister in his speech on November 6 set out the federal jurisdiction to include railways, trucking, shipping, banking, grain handling and national infrastructure industries. One amendment reduces from five to one the required years of employment but a minimum of five is provided and a maximum of 40 removed. If more than 50 workers are laid off, 16 weeks' notice is required, and the employer must set up a management labour committee to minimize the impact of the lay-off on the workers.
The first disappointment in this movement-in the right direction-in the proposed amendments to Part III is the failure to recognize the equity of workers in their jobs. This recognition greatly strengthens the Japanese industrial empire in its successful drive to produce quality products at competitive world prices. It is a concept I hope the new minister will address.
The new threshold for severence pay of one year and the removal of the cap on it are good moves. The minimum of 50 required to trigger a 16 weeks' notice of lay-off is discriminatory against faithful long-term workers in small to moderatesized plants and does not contemplate enlightened employers who, through no personal fault, are suddenly forced into bankruptcy by high interest rates or credit restrictions by our banks and are unable to gove any reasonable notice. Is there anything to stop an unscrupulous employer from laying off 10 people at a time and defeating the purpose of this amendment?
Finally, the big disappointment is that the lack of federal leadership and initiative has resulted in no comparable provincial legislation. The new DREE disease of wanting to centralize control of projects and glory is apparently contagious. The result is equally predictable. All programs do not work well in every area and region. This program will operate only with railways, trucking, shipping, banking, grain handling, and national infrastructure industries. Again there is little benefit for the Maritimes because, thanks to the present government, we have little left in the way of national transportation companies and grain handling. We do have the banks-or better put, they have us. Our federal trades people are already the victims of discrimination, being paid regional rates below the national average.
Thanks, Mr. Minister, at least for your good intentions.
There is, however, something the government can do, that is, to set aside a portion of the income tax from firms and corporations to be held in trust and payable in lieu of severence pay and notice to all workers in the event of a lay-off, whether in groups of 50 or less.
The program before us is one of last resort and is no substitute for the program of job creation to which the minister referred in his opening remarks on November 6. I agree. What we really need is a blueprint for the economic recovery and development of our nation, and the training programs of which the minister also spoke are an essential measure that must progress in concert with development and job creation. In the Atlantic provinces, community colleges and technical
December 14, 1981

training schools must be vastly expanded to meet this challenge. High level curriculums with modern teaching methods, on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs must move forward hand in hand with fair employment policies and regional development and job creation policies.
We need an economic vehicular structure much like the ocean industries concept developed by DREE and Nova Scotia in June of this year to seek and bring new high technology firms-the winners in today's economy-to the Maritimes to build on areas where we have an equal or natural advantage. Spin-off and involvement in the $400 billion of Canadian energy megaprojects in the next decade require action now by Ottawa and the Maritimes to put in place a strategy to enable Maritimers to use this national dynamic as a development tool.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) had the floor.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, at adjournment earlier this evening, I was discussing the spin-off and involvement in the $400 billion of Canadian energy megaprojects that are planned for the next decade. I was indicating that this would require action now by Ottawa and the maritime provinces if we want to put in place a strategy to enable maritimers to use this national dynamic as a badly needed development tool.
However, prospective employees also require extensive training to take advantage of these opportunities. This requires facilities and they require money. The maritimes do not have the tax base to provide it. We need an investment in our provinces to enable us to provide and staff secondary industries to help us help ourselves. Instead of handouts and subsidies, we need an investment. Until this is done, the measures of last resort for most Canadians are often the measures of only resort for those in the maritimes.
Among other things, we must resist and reverse the cutbacks in established programs financing for the maritimes shown in the schedules tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen). We need vast increases by both federal and provincial governments in research and development and secondary education as national and regional objectives administered and applied in the maritime provinces. Failure to train Canadians
Labour Adjustment Benefits
now means importing many of our future leaders and skilled workers tomorrow.
Finally, I do not want to delay passage of this bill which seeks to alleviate the human tragedy, the quiet poverty, the embarrassment and real hardship for many of a growing number of Canadians who suffer from unemployment. Almost half of our unemployed people are in the 15 to 24-year-old age group, and this bill does not touch them. However, some of the measures I have proposed can help them if the minister will reconvene a meeting of ministers who designed the program before us and discuss it with them.
I would urge him as a new minister to take the leadership in abandoning the reckless direction on which our country is now embarked and to create instead a climate attracted to industry, to competition and to the economic recovery of our nation. As a trading nation, Canada can move from fourteenth back to second place in terms of competition and standard of living, and we can be first. All it takes to replace the frustration of older workers unable to find work and disillusionment of young people seeking work is the national will and political determination of our government.
I hope the minister will act as a fresh new voice in the councils of his tired old government and urge on them an end to eighteenth century economic policies that do not work and a fresh new beginning for our young country that can truly lead the world in providing good jobs for all its people and the highest standard of care and living in the world.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I was so taken with the oratory of the preceding speaker that I forgot to prepare myself to follow him. That was an excellent speech made by my colleague. I feel rather inadequate following such a great speech, but I am prepared to address a few words to the House on this legislation.
This legislation reminds me of the kind of approach that this government often takes to economic planning in our country. It is rather of the kind, if I may be permitted to say so, that would say: would the last person to leave town please shut off the lights. That is the kind of legislation we now have before us. It is typical to the kind of legislation this government has to bring in in terms of the bungling and mismanagement we have seen demonstrated by it with respect to an economic and industrial strategy for our country.
I want to deal with the specifics of this legislation in due course. However, I think it is fair to say that this legislation has been necessitated because of the failure of the government to develop a coherent industrial strategy. Over the years, during the time we have been in opposition we have consistently demanded that the government state, announce and develop an industrial strategy to chart our nation's course in the years to come. Our calls for action have fallen on deaf ears. We are now asked to pass this patchwork legislation to deal with industries that are succumbing to that particular policy failure. It is truly a sad commentary about this government and a sad reality that this type of legislation is needed in our country.

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
In our country we have a paste fix government, whether it be in the form of a budget or in terms of its constitutional proposals or now with respect to industrial and labour policies. I say to the minister who has been newly appointed that he will not only need all the incredibly hard work, of which I know he is capable, but also an enormous amount of luck, having regard to the competence of the colleagues with whom he sits in cabinet. The exception is the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola).
This government has never been known to be a government of action; but at one time Liberal governments were known as governments of reaction. They used to round up the cattle after they got out of the barn. Now when the cows get out, the government throws up its hands and shuts down the farm.


Walter David Baker: Buys a new herd.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Or buys a new herd and subsidizes it out of public money, as my colleague for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) points out. I notice with interest the legislation's provisions for joint planning committees in cases of industrial shutdowns, the lofty objectives to develop an adjustment program to minimize the impact, the termination of employment of so-called redundant workers. I shall deal with that subsequently in my remarks.
On the basis of the provisions of this bill, I am very interested to find out exactly who will be covered by this legislation. On the basis of the provisions dealing with qualifications, I would be very surprised if there are many people left who will, in fact, qualify. If they do qualify, they will have to have met some pretty stringent qualification provisions with respect to years of employment in any particular industry. It would be far safer, if they wanted to bring benefits to those people who have become redundant, to modify the provisions of the legislation with respect to the number of years one is required to have worked in a particular industry or in a region so as to qualify for benefits. If that were the case, in light of Canada's present economic circumstances, I think we would have a larger group of Canadians who were out of work, unemployed and with no prospect of employment in the immediate future who could receive some benefit by the legislation.
With respect to this legislation, I should like to direct my attention to a particular matter of some interest and importance to me, coming as I do from Saskatchewan, in view of my responsibilities while in government. It has to do with a circumstance that has developed in our country, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan, at Uranium City. I ask rhetorically how this legislation, which was supposedly going to help people who have been put out of work through no fault of their own, and not by the dreaded private sector but by a Crown corporation, is going to be of assistance. We have listened to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). One would think that the Crown corporation was the answer to all our industrial strategies or all our problems in Canada, because here is a corporation that allows a government to use
the corporation as an instrument of national economic policy. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that a Crown corporation is a vehicle that is accountable to the people of Canada. Wonderful words on the part of the minister with respect to the advantages of Crown corporations in our country!
The example of what has happened in Uranium City as a result of the actions and, if I may be permitted to say, the callous and cruel actions of the Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, would make any thinking Canadian cringe with shame and disappointment. For an instrument of the Government of Canada to take actions that are so cruel and callous with respect to a community of some 3,000 people in northern Saskatchewan, I believe, warrants an extensive and full parliamentary inquiry into this particular shutdown of an industry which seriously affects an important province and city of our country.
Legislative provisions in this area are the minimum provisions the government of the day intends to accept from its corporate citizens. In light of the legislation being presented today, I think it is interesting to consider the Crown corporation's treatment of its own employees, and the assistance the government has provided its own people. Eldorado Nuclear Limited has been operational for a number of decades. Around the mine, a thriving town of some 3,000 inhabitants has developed. In the community of Uranium City people have purchased homes, developed businesses and established their families. This is not just a resource camp moving miners in and out on a weekly basis; it is a town that has developed to serve the needs of the corporation. One would hope there would be some reciprocation in kind on the part of the government and its agency. Indeed, the town relies heavily on Eldorado Nuclear Limited. There is no other major industry that supports the community. Reports indicate that the town has a tax rate of $4.5 million to keep water and sewer lines open, to maintain the streets and to keep the lights on. Eldorado Nuclear Limited supplies 87 per cent of this base. When Eldorado goes, the town will have less than $1 million with which to support itself.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited has recently made extensive capital investment in the community. I should point out that the investments have led many of the residents to believe that the future for Uranium City is reasonably bright. In the last two years, $4 million has been spent on housing and an additional $4 million on machinery.


An hon. Member:: That is to close it down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is prior to closing down precipitously. Those are the kind of capital expenditures that have been made in the town of Uranium City in Saskatchewan. In the last year, as part of a $12 million capital expenditure program $1.2 million was spent on the mill; $1.2 million was spent on a new food facility; and $1.7 million was spent to complete the Chariot River power project to bring power to the mine and to the community. That is an enormous amount of money, Mr. Speaker. One hundred and fifty of the 580 homes that are
December 14, 1981

owned by Eldorado have been built in the last five years. Eldorado Nuclear Limited has just purchased a Boeing 737 aircraft to ferry workers in and out of Uranium City. This is the principal purpose of the particular aircraft. The support facility for this aircraft, including the construction of a major building to house the aircraft, was built in Saskatoon, and the support staff have been moved from Edmonton to Saskatoon during the time that I was minister. This is merely by coincidence, I should point out. I would never stoop to any kind of partisan, political change. It is the logical place for the headquarters to be. That hangar facility was built at a cost of $2.7 million. Rather than having warnings given to the employees and imposing a restriction on hiring, in addition, Eldorado hired men right to the day of the announced shutdown. Reports have indicated-and I think they have been substantiated- that some 45 families were moved into Uranium City within weeks before the announced shutdown. It was indicated to them that their employment would be of an ongoing and continuous nature into the foreseeable future. There was no word of a possible shutdown of this mine operation of Eldorado.
I should point out that Uranium City is not the type of community from which one can just pack up one's belongings and drive away. The first problem is that normally there is no road, except during the wintertime when one must drive over the frozen surface of northern Saskatchewan. Uranium City is 850 kilometres north of Saskatoon. Virtually the only link to the community is by aircraft from Saskatoon. If one decides to settle in Uranium City, one makes a commitment, a commitment from which it is not easy to back away. One must realize that the social and economic costs to people of the community will be massive in terms of the action taken by Eldorado Nuclear Limited, with the approbation and agreement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the government. Recent expansion has been made by a number of businesses in the community. They, along with privately-owned homes, have lost nearly their entire value. On the one hand, the government brings in legislation to aid employees in industrial shutdowns, and on the other hand it provides a devastating Christmas present to the people of Uranium City.
I wish to review the reasons given by the government and by Eldorado for the shutdown. First they indicated that the ore grade has fallen 40 per cent in five years and that production costs are rising faster than inflation. Also they indicated that there has been a drop in the world price for uranium from $50 per pound in 1979 to $27 per pound today. I, for one, am not ready to accept blindly the stated reasons as entirely believable. In fact, there are several reasons to call suspect the rationale of the corporation in this particular matter.
I should like to point to the most recent annual report of Eldorado. If one reviews it, one notices the brave projections for the future of the mine. It indicated that ore grade was below average in recent years, but that this was due to an inability to carry out development work because of a shortage of experienced miners. Not one word was said about the mine
Labour Adjustment Benefits
running out of uranium. Indeed, the report indicated that development work should allow access to higher ore grades in 1981. In 1980 the ore grade went up from what it was in 1979, from .185 per cent to .188 per cent. A higher tonnage and grade, coupled with an increase in the milling recovery rate from 86.9 per cent in 1979 to 88.6 per cent in 1980, resulted in a 9 per cent increase in production of U3Og. With these signs of improvement, what will happen to the brave projections? The people of Uranium City would very dearly like to know. Have costs of production really soared as high as Eldorado and the Liberal government have claimed? One must wonder what is included in the cost of production figures. Do these costs include all extraordinary expenditures, such as aircraft and hangar buildings, the Chariot River electrical project and the new dinery? The stories told by people who work in the community and in the mine, as evidenced at a visit by the leader of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party to that community during the course of last week, open one's eyes to the litany of wasted expenditure by the corporation.
The people of this community-and I think hon. members of Parliament from all parts of Canada, particularly those of us from Saskatchewan-have so many questions about the management or mismanagement of the Beaverlodge operation that it can only be resolved by a full parliamentary inquiry, for which I have called. The questions multiply when one hears of the prognostications with respect to the international uranium market. On today's news we heard that a private company, Rio Algoma, is prepared to offer employment to 450 of the people in Uranium City who were laid off. Does that sound as if the uranium market and the uranium mining industry were depressed? One must ask oneself this question: if Eldorado, in its statements with respect to the shutdown of this mine, is so pessimistic about the future of the uranium industry, why are we now finding that a private concern is able to make a very substantial offer of employment for many people who will be put out of work? Does that speak to the efficiency of Eldorado? Does that speak to the efficiency of the Beaverlodge Mine?
As for the decrease in the price of uranium, it is interesting to note that this is an issue in 1981. In the early 1970s when uranium was valued at under $6 per pound, and with no sales contracts in the hands of Eldorado, the mine came through because of the formation of Uranium Canada to stockpile uranium for government loans on production. Now, with the price at $27 per pound, stockpiling is not even considered an option. I ask the following question seriously: is it not possible that this stockpile transferred from Uranium Canada to Eldorado, which is now carried by Eldorado Nuclear Limited, is putting financial pressure on Eldorado, and an easy remedy is to shut down an operating facility so that some of the stockpile on hand may be sold to relieve the obligation on Eldorado?
Another aspect of the question of uranium prices is the quotation of Eldorado of the drop in the spot market price. As the last annual report aptly indicated, Eldorado's uranium is not sold on the spot market. There is no actual spot market for

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
uranium. Rather, it is sold on long term contracts. The area of existing and future contract prices is another area which should be thoroughly reviewed by a parliamentary committee to see whether or not the situation has been accurately stated by Eldorado.
Eldorado is also presently involved in the development of the Key Lake Mine in Saskatchewan, scheduled to go into production in 1983. There is no question that the market price is soft for uranium at the present time. When viewing Eldorado's over-all mining production plans, one cannot help but be intrigued by Eldorado's manipulation of its assets to fit its contracts. Beaverlodge will operate until June 1982. Supplies for the contracts can be filled by the stockpile after Beaverlodge closes its doors. Then contracts are freed up for the Key Lake operation in 1983. It is terribly important for Key Lake to have contracts waiting for the mine to open its door, to justify the existence of the particular operation.
It is interesting to note the prediction by analysis in the government's Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which foresaw the softening market in February 1980. It indicated:
-prospects for the short term future dimmed in the face of a growing imbalance between projected uranium requirements and supply capabilities. Implications of this growing imbalance were that development decisions for some of the recent new discoveries may need to be deferred, that there will probably be continuing decline in prices, at least in real terms, and that there will likely be some loss in the exploration momentum that has built up during the last five years.
Rather than heeding these warnings and taking action to bolster the market, the federal Crown corporation, with the approbation and approval of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has done absolutely nothing. Therefore, when the market softens, the more marginal operations are destined to die, no matter what the economic and social costs may be.
It is fascinating to consider that we have this Crown corporation, the so-called window on the industry, suddenly becoming the window on how to create instant and devastating unemployment in the country. The government is bringing in legislation to soften the impact of economic shutdown on employees in the private sector. At the same time it is not willing to offer its own employees the courtesy of a more detailed explanation of the necessity of the shutdown in the first place.
Had there been sufficient advance warning of major economic loss to those employees and to other local inhabitants dependent on the existence of the local operation, perhaps many of us would not have felt as strongly about the actions taken by Eldorado. Had there been some indication by the government of a firm offer of financial compensation to innocent people who lost their employment, their hopes, their prospects for advancement and their investment in the community, perhaps many of us would have felt a little less strongly about its callous actions.
This is not one of the dreaded multinational companies that is acting in a cruel and callous manner; this is our friendly federal Crown corporation. It is one of the corporations that is
accountable to the people of Canada. But what accountability is there in this situation? The actions of Eldorado demonstrate that it is the kind of corporation with which we have not the best of all worlds but the worst of all worlds.
If you were the president of a private corporation and you made the kind of capital investment in the community and in the mine that was made by this Crown corporation, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider how you might be received at the annual shareholders' meeting. Notwithstanding the fact that you are such an outstanding person, I would suggest that your job would be in serious jeopardy if that were the case. But that is the way things are today, and we have to ask what is going on with Eldorado. What kind of decisions has this Crown corporation made that will result in the shutdown of a town of 3,000 people and which will negatively affect the supply centre of Saskatoon which sends materials, personnel and professional people into that community? What kind of corporation would first recommend the establishment of a uranium refinery in Port Hope, Ontario, and then, after the re-election of the Liberal government in 1980, waste hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money by moving that facility to northern Ontario? If you were on the board of directors of that corporation, Mr. Speaker, how do you think your shareholders would receive you?
I simply say that these corporations have no accountability to the people of Canada. We might as well forget that notion. This incident is proof positive of the kind of thing that can happen. It is evidence of a lack of sensitivity about the effect that this expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money will have on an important community in Saskatchewan. As I understand it, the only accountability is to the shareholder of the company-the one and only shareholder, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He must accept full responsibility for the actions of the government. He must accept full responsibility on behalf of the Liberal Government of Canada for this heartless shutdown of a town in one of the important provinces of the country.


John Horton McDermid: It is another slap in the face for the west.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague says that it is another slap in the face for the west. As I told the minister in the House, I would bet a lot of money that if this mine were located in the minister's riding of Outremont, it would not be shut down; the plant would go on and on and on, regardless of the cost. That is the way the minister thinks and that is the way the government thinks. It is the kind of philosophy that leads to legislation such as we are considering today. It is evidence of the shortsightedness of this government with respect to any strategy. It is an example of the pork-barrel approach with respect to all its decisions on Crown corporations. The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) knows what I am talking about. She has been getting the education of her life these last two years that she has been in government. I can imagine that she does not get a moment's sleep at night. Instead, she must be tossing in her bed, thinking about what is going on and what she thought would be involved in government-
December 14, 1981


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very confused by the charges made by the hon. member. I wonder if he knows what the quality of the ore grade is in the mine that is being shut down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister made that interjection. I have a grudging admiration for her as she sits amongst her cabinet colleagues. I have some sympathy for her because she has only been here two years and I know it is difficult for her to appreciate the way the government operates.
I have information on the ore quality in front of me, Mr. Speaker, but I have also listened to legitimate and professional opinion expressed to me by geologists and mining engineers in Uranium City. They say that the shutdown of this plant is not absolutely necessary and that at the very least the plant could remain in operation for longer than two or three years without seriously affecting the position of Eldorado.
I have already mentioned some of the expenditures that have been made and I know that the twin from Ottawa Centre would not want to do Saskatchewan out of any of its rightful entitlement. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) went to Saskatchewan two weeks ago when he attended the provincial Liberal convention. It was held in a phone booth, Mr. Speaker! The parliamentary secretary went to offer a defence of the budget, so I am surprised to see him back in the House grinning as I know what kind of reception he received from the Saskatchewan Liberals. They had to send a delegation down here to see the minister and ask about the industrial and economic strategy-if there is any. He knows what pressure the very few Liberals left in Saskatchewan are under when they are faced with the dumbkopf and dumb-headed decisions such as those made in Uranium City and in the budget. He knows that the credibility of the Liberal Party is absolutely zero in Saskatchewan, if not right across the country.
A human tragedy is taking place in Uranium City, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State for Mines will understand this as she comes from a mining community. She knows what is going to happen to the community, to families, to people who invested their life savings in an enterprise on the basis of statements made by Eldorado Nuclear in its annual report, its advertising and employment campaigns. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, bringing in 45 families about two weeks before the mine shutdown. Imagine bringing people from Atlantic Canada to northern Saskatchewan and then, the first time they go to collect their pay cheque, giving them a termination slip! That just boggles the mind.
The government has shut down this mine without a full and proper investigation of available alternatives. I am afraid the situation smacks very much of mismanagement and incompetence.
How could the minister tolerate a situation where the corporation continues to make new major investments in an
Labour Adjustment Benefits
operation to build that new power plant, to put in extensive machinery, to move all of its support facilities, as well as building new housing and heating facilities for the workers, while it plans to close down the mine in the near future? The hopes of the people of the community were unnecessarily and falsely raised. Is it any wonder that the people of Uranium City are calling for an inquiry? Under the circumstances, how can this request be denied? I say that it would be laughable, if it were not so pathetic, to see the irony of the government bringing in legislation calling for joint planning in industrial shutdown situations, yet turning around and leaving the people of Uranium City to believe that their community's future is assured, and then announcing a shutdown and not being able to guarantee that the community will be fairly compensated.
Because of the lack of leadership on the part of this government, we must now look at legislation to cope with the uranium cities which will be springing up all over this country. A lack of any direction by this government and a lack of any sense of planning has caused this problem.
The Liberal government was once regarded as a reactive kind of government. Now it is regarded as a government of reaction. There has been a lack of any sense of empathy demonstrated by the leading spokesmen of this government for people who share the burden of the government's mismanagement and wrong decisions. When I go back to my constituency over the weekend, I cannot help but be impressed by the number of people who come up to me on the street and ask, "What does the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) think that he is doing? Does he not understand how the budget he has brought down is adversely affecting my small independent confectionery?"-or, "my small business", "my insurance company", or, "my insurance agency". Many people who have put in a lot of time with the railways in this country come up to me and say, "It is not much, we did not get paid much and we do not have much of a pension; but at least we have the right to passes on the railways of this country. Now we will be taxed on the benefits we have received".


Dave Nickerson: It doesn't matter. There is no train anyway.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Many people come up and say they have made plans as a result of the government passing legislation in a budgetary context, but all of a sudden they find, having made those plans and having invested a lot of money in accountants and advice, that these items will now be taxed, and they will have to go through the expensive proposition of realigning and reconsidering their positions in terms of their business operations. The average man on the street bears the burden for the government's mismanagement. I will tell Your Honour one thing. People must feed themselves, and they will not be getting any free lunches, as far as the Minister of Finance is concerned.
Therefore, when I look at what is happening to Uranium City, I can say that I consider this to be the story of a shutdown of a town by a government. Then, reading this legislation in the context of that situation, one wonders what we are now talking about. Over the weekend, a letter was

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
delivered to my house back in Saskatoon, which I will read. As Your Honour can see, it is signed by approximately 100 people from Uranium City. They are just average citizens in Uranium City who have signed this letter to endorse their feelings as expressed by Mrs. Carol Reekie, who lives in Eldorado, Saskatchewan. It is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and, it states:
I would like to know what gives you the right to put over 800 people out of work? You, as the representative of Canada, is supposed to stop unemployment not create it. It's easy for you, you are not the one out of a job, and you do not have to worry about personal money problems. What about us? What kind of support are we or should we expect from you, if any at all?
I hear you are retiring in the spring, well, for the benefit of the people of Canada, I think you should. I as a voting person, voted for the Liberal Party-
The following words are capitalized:
-WELL, WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT! I think if you would have taken a larger interest in the mine, you might have stopped the downfall of the mine. Why was Eldorado permitted to build so many new homes, build a new cookery, renovate the rec hall, make the move from Edmonton to Saskatoon, buy a new plane, and hire so many new employees if there wasn't enough work or money to do it, along with the fact a shutdown was being considered? I'm sure you feel there were good reasons for everything that was built or bought but I don't think anyone up here in Uranium City would feel they were good enough to put Eldorado more in debt to push for a shutdown.
A week ago a man moved to Uranium City with a wife and an above average amount of children. After the man arrived all he had left was forty dollars. The town people went around with a basket to raise money to give to the parents so they can buy Christmas presents for the children. Are you going to help all the families who are new up here and have no money, and for that matter, what about the older families who have bought property or businesses and can't sell them? Are you willing to buy them at a reasonable price? My bet is you won't do anything, like you said, we as the westerners don't like you, and as far as the Uranium City people are concerned you are not worth our time or money!
That was signed by Mrs. Carol Reekie and, as I said, by approximately 100 other citizens whose families feel very much the same with respect to the kind of treatment they have received from the hands of this government.
I have just a few more minutes left to speak, but I want to ask Your Honour what we have here concerning this legislation, this bill which is, at least, entitled "An Act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code." We see right away that this government has gone full speed ahead with respect to employment opportunities as far as a new level of bureaucracy is concerned, because it has now set up, of course, a labour adjustment review board. It will create a few more jobs for people in Canada who are considered by the government to be appropriate appointments of people who carry the right political card. However, if we go on to see exactly what this act does, we find that it is a piece of legislation-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Am I getting near to the end of my time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: You are, indeed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have just a couple of observations. I am sorry to ask for the indulgence of the House, but I will be only a couple of seconds.
What I feel must be viewed very carefully in committee is the fact that this legislation gives carte blanche to the government to designate and deem, by order in council, areas which will be eligible for any benefits.
I made the second point earlier in my remarks, and it is my final remark. In terms of qualifications for benefits under Section 12 of this legislation, I find it very hard to understand how many people will be affected by this legislation and will receive any benefits. It is something we will have to view in committee, as the action of the government and this legislation causes us great concern. I thank Your Honour for allowing me the time that you have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, prior to suppertime, while in the elevator, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) asked why I, as a Conservative, was applauding the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I said I was glad you were supporting the NDP.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: She said that I was becoming a little leftwing. I fail to understand that remark, but since she is here tonight, I thought I might explain my feelings to her.
This bill is another bill which is designed by socialists to increase socialism by creating another board, another committee, another group, another branch of the civil service within the ministry of labour, another level of bureaucracy, and another payola for those who believe in big government in the same way socialists normally believe. I am delighted to welcome the hon. member for Kootenay West into the Conservative camp as he is at least able and willing to address this bill within its proper framework. It is exactly an effort by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) to produce a bill to create another board, another bureaucracy, another level of bureaucracy, another inquiry system by which some people can go into other people's places of business, their offices and inquire into their records, demand that they produce things under oath, demand that they do this, that and the other thing. It is another level of the same thing we have had too much of. You can already go across this country and ask people day after day what is wrong in Canada, and they say there is too much government, too much red tape, too much bureaucracy, too much, too much, too much, and this bill, sir, is too much, too much and is unneeded.
We have a ministry that is involved in manpower and unemployment insurance. The job of that ministry is to take people who are unfortunately out of work, unemployed, and find them other places to be employed. The job of that ministry is to conduct a retraining program, if possible. We know that in our society people are trained in school to do certain things, and they go and do those things but, because we are in a very rapidly changing world, people often have to find new sources of employment, new places to earn their livelihood and new careers. Some people in our society may have to find new careers twice or three times in their lives. That is the nature of a fast-changing society. That is why we have a
December 14, 1981

Department of Manpower and that is why we have unemployment insurance.
Now we have the Minister of Labour bringing a bill before us so that he too can become involved, so that he too can have a new bureaucracy involved with retraining and with determining which people he can categorize; determining if they should fall within the category of being capable of receiving some sort of special benefit or some sort of manpower payment.
There is no need for this bill. There is need for a better manpower operation. There is need for a little more attention to the facts of life in terms of business and career training and retraining. There may be people unfortunately displaced in our industrialized society who are over 54, as the bill says, who cannot be retrained for some reason and whom we as a society may have to look after. But is there any need for this great board of review? How many people are to be on the board? The bill does not say. There is going to be a board appointed which will make inquiries and which will certify whether a person who applies is eligible as a recipient. That person will receive what amounts to a UIC benefit; not quite, but 60 per cent of his insurable earnings as it is described in the bill. Without even being tied in with the Department of Manpower, it uses the same phraseology-insurable earnings.
What have we got here? We have another board to determine certain categories of people. How are the categories determined? They are determined by orders in council, presumably. It will determine employees who are redundant and who will perhaps receive 60 per cent of their insurable earnings for life. If there happens to be a mistake in the procedure and they receive more money than they should, their benefits will be garnisheed, they can be sued for up to five years of overpayment, their property can be taken from them. That is what is done with regard to unemployment insurance when that commission makes a mistake. If they pay a person a little more than he should receive under unemployment insurance, the benefits can be garnisheed and his property can be seized. They even send individuals to jail sometimes. The board is going to be able to do that in this case too.
We will have another whole bureaucracy lined up to do that. We will have another unemployment insurance bureaucracy under the Minister of Labour because this minister and his people want a bureaucracy too. After all, why should they not have one if the Minister of Manpower can have one? Why should they not have a bureaucracy in order to determine whether people are unemployable or redundant? Why should they not be able to shove them off onto the scrap heap and say: We will pay you 60 per cent of your insurable earnings for the rest of your lives, maybe, until you are 65 or until you collect from Canada Pension Plan, or until you collect your old age pension? That is how we are going to treat you. That is the policy. That is the way we are going to have it; another bureaucracy, another level of payments, another way of handling it, another way of shovelling people into an ash can. It is no good. We cannot as a society operate that way.
Labour Adjustment Benefits
Let us analyse what is wrong. First of all, in this country we have had a history of bad trade policy. The minister we have right now, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) is the fellow who said this government is going to produce a low interest rate policy. He is the fellow who made sure we have had the highest interest rates in history. He is the fellow who said he would resign if interest rates went above 14 per cent. They went to 16 per cent, and he thumbed his nose at Parliament. They went to 22 per cent, and he thumbed his nose at Parliament. He continues to thumb his nose at the Canadian people. He is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who said, when it was suggested in the House that one of the problems with Admiral is that it was making microwave ovens and all of a sudden all sorts of these ovens were dumped on the market from Taiwan, Korea and so on, "You have to prove dumping. Too bad your people are out of work, Don; you have to prove dumping." That is the trouble with this doggone minister; that is the trouble with this government.
It is not a question of making sure there are jobs. What does he do? What did he do when the footwear industry came to him and said, "Just give the footwear industry a couple of more years' protection through quotas and it will be able to export leather footwear to the rest of the world?" The industry said it was getting tooled up to make the stuff and was getting good at it. That is what the industry said to him. What did he say? He said: "Well, too bad, you haven't got any quota protection anymore. We are going to let those people dump their footwear into Canada. We don't care about your industry. Let us have more people unemployed." He said: "I will tell you what we are going to do. We are going to give you protection for canvas footwear." Representatives of the industry said: "We don't make canvas footwear." He said: "Well, we will give you protection for canvas footwear." That is our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. That is our minister of unemployment. That is how the minister makes sure Canada is rapidly becoming deindustrialized.
My colleague, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), keeps asking the minister about Japanese cars coming into Canada. There were 60 per cent more this year than a year ago. What does the hon. member for Windsor West, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, do to protect Canadian jobs? What does he say? He says: "It's okay; don't worry, fellow. You know, the Japs are efficient. We will make your auto people redundant and maybe we will get the Minister of Labour to make auto workers, who have worked 30 or 40 years in the industry, eligible for 60 per cent of their insurable earnings until they are 65." That is the trade policy of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and that is the trade policy of this government. That is what is wrong with this bill and that is what is wrong with this government. The textile workers and the shoe workers are already under this kind of policy. But what are we doing to make sure that we produce textiles and shoes?

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
Most of the modern textiles are made from petroleum products. Canada is a nation which has many of these resources available. We are a nation that can develop those resources cheaper than any other nation. However, due to the trade policies of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, textile workers are being thrown out of work. It is not because we are inefficient or because we do not have the raw materials but because there is not the will on part of the government to develop. The government's desire, apparently, is to pay 60 per cent of the insurable earnings to some people who the minister decides through his appointee on some board are redundant. The people are redundant.
Our country is a great producer of raw material in the world. We are becoming a great exporter of more raw materials. We are becoming the leading hewers of wood and drawers of water in the world, instead of utilizing the raw materials and the competent people with which we are endowed to enlarge our industrial base. This minister introduces a bill to make those people redundant and to pay them 60 per cent of their insurable earnings for the balance of their natural days, or at least until they receive their old age security or guaranteed income supplement. That is what this program is all about. Instead of building this country, the government wants to put it on pension and lay it off. This bill is designed to give the country permanent UIC benefits, instead of creating job opportunities for people who are capable or working. This bill is intent on putting people on the dole and under the hand of the minister.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where is the trade policy and industrial policy of this government? Where is the policy that ensures that people who produce footwear efficiently can obtain jobs in that industry? We still wear shoes in this country. Where is the policy of the government to provide jobs for people who are experienced in making textiles? We still wear clothes in this country. We can make the yarns and synthetics to make these clothes.
Where is the will in this country to use Canada's home markets as a base on which we can exploit world potential? What we get is a policy that pays 60 per cent of insurable earnings when you are out of work and redundant.
The government is going for the high tech industry, such as the famous computer company on which it wasted $128 million. Sure, we need more high technology. Hon. members opposite need high technology, Mr. Speaker. The people of Canada have had enough, and the people who work for Admiral have had enough of this government. Admiral used to make the best appliances and televisions until this government, under the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, allowed the television market to be swamped by Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong. It is not because of high technology or good merchandising but because the government wanted to give away the jobs so it could sell a bunch of unrefined and unmilled wheat. It gave away our internal market for technology, and that is what the government is doing to the telephone industry today. That is what it is doing to the
communications industry today, and it is what they have done to the microwave industry. Now it is the refrigerators, stoves, washing machines and dryers. Instead of allowing Canadians to develop their own products which can be sold worldwide, it is making sure our home market is destroyed by overseas competition. At the same time, it does not ensure that Canada has access to overseas markets.
If a company tries to sell its goods in Japan, it meets one non-tariff barrier after another. It makes one sick. However, the Japanese are allowed to come to Canada to form their sales corporations and sell their products, and the government does not bother them one bit. What the government does is to sell them our coal, iron and wheat. We do not even sell them our pork half the time. The government allows nations to buy our raw materials, gives them complete access to our consumer market, and then we wonder why the people who make shoes and clothing, refrigerators and televisions become redundant. The policy of the Minister of Labour is to pay them 60 per cent of their insurable earnings if they are 54 years of age or more, or if they are 50 years of age and have been working for 30 years, 1,000 hours per year-he may pay them also.
This is not a policy which will allow Canada to develop. The working people of Canada do not want this kind of policy. They need jobs and the opportunity to build and create and to use that creativity.
This is a welfare bill. It may well be that in some of the changing styles of the world the buggy whip goes out of style and people are untrainable for anything else. When they become incapable of changing, after a long period of time, perhaps we should be doing something for them. But surely it can be done under present manpower arrangements and present UIC arrangements. Surely provisions can be made for people who have worked 30 or 40 years in an industry and, because of their age and aptitude, cannot be trained for something else. We can do something for those people to give them recognition for their many years of service in an industry without creating a new board or department and a new bureaucracy of government. That would be nonsense. It is nonsense that this bill should even be before the House for debate.
It is my hope that this session of Parliament will end while this bill is still before the committee so it will die in committee and have to be reintroduced. During that time, the minister may have an opportunity to change the legislation before reintroducing it, or perhaps he may make changes to the UIC and manpower regulations to combine these measures with the bill. We do not need more commissioners and board members to administer a second phase of UIC for those who no longer qualify for UIC benefits or do not qualify for Canada pensions because they can still do some kind of work and are not totally burnt out. We need better proposals than those provided in this bill. We need leadership from the government in terms of a new industrial policy for the country which recognizes that we have a home market in Canada for the products which we can produce here.
December 14, 1981

At some point in the future we will reserve that home market for Canadian workers and Canadian business. We will not let every Tom, Dick and Harry in the world dump their products on the Canadian market and put Canadians out of work. We are capable of making our own automobiles, trucks and tractors in this country. We do not have to leave our markets open to the likes of those in Russia, Korea and elsewhere to use our home market for their dumping ground. Tell me, can the Russians buy a Lada for $4,500 in Moscow? I say they cannot. The reason is that they do not sell them that cheap over there, but they will dump them in our country at that price. Can you buy those Jap cars in Tokyo for the kind of money you have to pay in Mississauga?


Mr. Evans:: What cars?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You heard me. The parliamentary secretary does not like the words "Jap cars". I am going to tell him they are Jap cars.


John Leslie Evans: No, I don't like it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is too bad. My people want jobs. They want the right to work and build for this country, and they do not want our country to wind up being the dumping ground for everybody's surplus product and everybody's industrial activities. But that is the attitude of the parliamentary secretary. He would want us to be the dumping ground of the world.


John Leslie Evans: I don't like racial slurs.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Racial be damned. I will tell the parliamentary secretary what this is. It is a Canadian slur. Canadians want jobs. They are not interested in being slurred by people who are prepared to let Canada be used as a dumping ground, as this government is prepared to let it be used.


Mr. Regan:: Thank God Canadians are not like you.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If the minister wants to run again in Halifax, we will see what he can do. We will see what all those fellows opposite can do again. They have made this country a deindustrialized country. They have taken job opportunities away from Canadians. They have allowed such industries as SKF Industries to close and ship its ball bearing machinery to other parts of the world, and allowed that product to be dumped in Canada because it cannot now be produced in Canada. Their policy is to deindustrialize and make people industrially redundant and pay them 60 cents on the dollar of their insurable earnings. This policy has to stop. We must have a Canada first industrial policy. We must have a budget which provides for that and which allows Canadians to invest in Canada and write off their interest costs. We must allow people to borrow to make investments. We must allow Canadians to build in this country. We cannot go on any longer with a policy which says that certain industries are no longer effective when there are still Canadians about who can make them so. We cannot allow decisions like this to be made in the ivory towers around
Labour Adjustment Benefits
here. I am sure the budget of November 12 was prepared in one of those ivory towers.
I want to speak for a moment or two about some of the causes of this bill. Our dollar is selling today for something in excess of 83 cents American in the world market. It is at that value simply because the government is artificially keeping it there.
The financial policies of this government have been driving Canadian capital from the country. In order to keep our dollar's value relatively close to that of the American dollar, this government has been raising interest rates to attract "hot" money. The consequence of this is that many of our exports are no longer competitive in Europe. This is true particularly of our industrial exports. The Europeans have refused to follow the crazy interest rate policies of the United States. We have not followed them; we have kept ahead of them. The consequence is that we have lost a great deal of our export market in the European common market. At the same time, we have made imports much cheaper in this country than they need to be. That policy itself is part of the deindustrialization policy of this government.
It is imperative to us that we change our domestic policies and our trade policies, that we let our dollar truly float, and that we encourage people in a real way to export from Canada and truly make sure that those who dump their products on the Canadian market are handled in the same manner as Canadian exporters would be dealt with if they were to try to dump their products on the American market. They would suddenly be frozen out by regulation, if by nothing else. We should treat importers into this country in the same way the Japanese treat importers into their country. Those importers should face the same scrutiny vis-a-vis the viability of their home production as we face when we go into their country. Unless we are prepared to have a trade policy which recognizes Canadians first, then, as this bill says, we will continue to have the obligation to categorize industries and to certify industries as eligible for adjustment. These industries will be generally redundant because of import competition and, under Clause 3 of the bill, people from those industries are the ones who can be certified. Clause 9 of the bill says:
Any employee who has been laid off may apply, directly or through an employer, trade union ... for certification as being eligible to apply-
"Certification to be eligible".


John Horton McDermid: He is going to be certifiable.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My colleague, the hon. member for Bramp-ton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), says "He is going to be certifiable". We used to certify lunatics. I suppose now we certify redundant employees. That is what this bill says; we are going to certify people. I think it is about time we stopped certifying people and started looking at the employment opportunities and the resources that are available in Canada. It is time we started looking on the bright side of things and organized our manpower department to retrain people and reorganize people into new jobs. Clearly, in a changing world people will have to move from job to job. We recognize that

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
but, most important, we must use the Canadian home market primarily for the development of Canadian industry as a Canadian home market for Canadians. As long as we are not prepared to do that, we will wind up with all sorts of industries which will be out of business on a cyclical basis. They will need readjustment or adjustment grants.


John Horton McDermid: They will be designated.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says they will be designated. We in Canada are tired of being designated. It is about time we had a government which was prepared to be Canadian first, to let Canadian working people be first, to let Canadian people have Canadian opportunities and to let the Canadian market be available for Canadians. The fact that someone might be able to produce a shoe for a cent or so cheaper than is produced in Canada should not mean that those who have produced shoes should forever get sixty cents of eligible wages until the age of 65.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on Bill C-78 I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) on bringing forward his first bill. It must give one a certain amount of pride to do so. I am sorry, however, that the bill does not really address the problems which face the Canadian people. I realize fully the minister's reaction when he thinks about people who have been working in one industry for a long period of time-perhaps 20 or 25 years-and then when all of a sudden the economic climate is such that an industry shuts its doors and lays many people off. It must be a devastating blow to people who have made a career in an industry and in a work force to find it shattered overnight.
I suggest to the minister and the government that we should not be trying to remedy the problems the economy causes but rather the economy itself. I do not think any man who has worked 20 to 25 years for an employer wants to leave that job, say that he cannot do anything else, that after all those years the plant is being shut down, he is out of a job, can no longer be the breadwinner and now must go on welfare, which is basically what it will amount to. That is not what the breadwinner or the woman wants. What those people want are jobs.
What are we doing about it? Unemployment in Canada is at an all-time high. Close to one million people across this country are now unemployed. A good 50 per cent are young people under the age of 24. Over half a million people under the age of 24 today are unemployed across this country.
What are we doing for them? We are not addressing that problem. It never ceases to amaze me, when I come into this House, this hallowed hall, and recognize the talent that sits on the Liberal benches, Conservative benches and indeed we must even say there are one or two in the little red rump who could address the problems facing our country. Instead, by agreement we spend a day on a bill that is only a band-aid. Certainly it addresses the problem that faces a work force hit
with an economic downturn where plants close and employees are thrown out of work. It does that.
What are we doing for the industry, because of the very direct attack on the energy industry, in central or western Canada? What are we doing to readjust that to get a viable industry back to work? What are we doing to attract back the 300 drilling rigs that have moved south to the United States, Australia or the Middle East? Absolutely nothing. We are floundering along.
The government brings in a national energy policy which says we are now going to try to get Canadian ownership of the oil industry. Let us look at what happens. The government borrows money on the foreign market at great expense to the Canadian people in order to buy Petrofina. It had to go to the foreign markets to borrow that money. It could have let Petrofina operate under foreign control and said that somewhere down the line it would have to make available for Canadian purchase so much of its stock in order that it would be more Canadian. It could have said it must reach a target of 50 per cent Canadian ownership. The Canadian people could have seen it was a good investment on the open market. That was one way.
By going to the foreign markets, the money is owed outside the country. What is the difference? Where is the Canadian ownership the government talks about? It is just an illusion, just a myth. There is no way we can look at Petro-Canada's purchase of Petrofina as anything but switching dollars from one basket to the other. It is still foreign and will be for a long time. It becomes more expensive as our Canadian dollar goes down, and down it is going.
In the bill the minister talks about the increased responsibility of the employer and the government with regard to displaced employees. Why are they displaced? What has happened to the economic climate in Canada that a situation has been created where factories are closing, bankruptcies are occurring and unemployment is at an all-time high? All the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) does to address the situation is to grease the rails so that we go into a deeper recession. My constituents in Athabasca are frightened, as are people right across this country, by what is happening to our country.
No longer can Canadians see security in a job. When they go home at night, they cannot be sure they will have a job to go to the next day. No longer can they plan on owning their homes in ten years because they do not know what the interest rate on their mortgage is going to be. No longer do they believe they can send their children to post-secondary schools, universities or technical schools, and launch them on a career.
Chaos has been created in our community. This is a beautiful country. We are probably the luckiest people in the world with the natural resources at our disposal, God-given. They are being abused by this incompetent government that cannot see past politics. It does not look at what is best for Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has a great design for Canada. He says the universe will unfold as it should. However, it is going to unfold the way he wants it. I am distressed.
December 14, 1981

Bill C-78 is aimed at relief for employees, particularly long term employees laid off if a plant or area has been designated by the minister. However, we still have bankruptcies. The largest single employer in Canada today is small business. How will this help a small company in Fort McMurray that declared bankruptcy last week? Five employees were thrown out of a job. More interesting, each was owed in wages in excess of $1,000. Under the Bankruptcy Act, those people will be entitled to and will receive no more than $500. Who is first on the list? The tax department of the Government of Canada is number one. It will get its money. The hell with the employee, the tax department gets its money first. Next, behind the tax man, is the bank. That is the next one. And then the secured debtors. Where is the employer or the employee? Way down at the bottom. But he only gets $500. We had a case recently in Fort McMurray where an employer who employed 300 people fell well within the guidelines the minister is talking about. The firm Tarsands Machine and Welding Ltd. went bankrupt. The employees of that firm supplied their own welding units. They worked on an hourly rate. The most valuable possession that a man has to sell is his labour and time. These men were owed between $3,000 and $4,000 by Tarsands Machine and Welding Ltd. because they used their own trucks, their own welding units and they did the job with their own equipment. The material was supplied.
We have outmoded legislation sitting on the books that we can do something about. Under the Bankruptcy Act, those men can claim no more than $500. I call that absolute, total injustice. Yet the minister introduces something here that is certainly needed. But what is needed more is incentive to help industry get going and incentive created by sound economic policy. As a result, these things would not happen.
For a moment I should like to address a particular case to the minister. For example, what happens to a man in his Fifties who gets laid off from a job? He says, "I am not going to go on this welfare program. I am going to find another job." He moves from Labrador City to Fort McMurray on the understanding that when he leaves Labrador City, he will receive a relocation grant. He gets to Fort McMurray and he finds a job. He applies for the relocation grant. He cannot get it. His furniture, which he is moving, is being held for ransom until he can pay the moving bill. Yet, the Department of Manpower and Immigration stated, "I am sorry, you did not make the proper application in the proper way; therefore, you cannot draw the necessary funds." The thing we should be doing is to ensure that these people who do want to move are allowed to move and are given the encouragement. Not one man after 20 or 30 years of employment wants to go home, face his family and say, "I am no longer employable. I do not have the necessary skills to go out and get another job elsewhere." I cannot think of anything worse than for a man to go home, face his family and say, "I worked 20 or 30 years but I am not worth a damn because I have nothing I can sell to an employer. Nobody wants to hire me." I saw that happen to my father. I saw what it did to him for a period of two months when he
Labour Adjustment Benefits
was unemployed. It is the only time that I remember his being unemployed. I shall tell you Mr. Speaker, it drove him crazy. I feared to come home at night. My father was a kind and gentle man who used to spend time with his children, but I will say that during that unemployment period it slowly ate away at him and I was afraid to come home because I did not know how he would react. That went on until he found another job.
I am saying to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that this does not solve the ills that are caused by plant shutdowns. Not one man receiving this early retirement funding or readjustment funding, or whatever one wants to call it, likes it. He will look at the cheque from the Government of Canada and, particularly if he has worked for 20 years, he will know that he is receiving welfare. He will not like it. What a way to destroy a man! Think of it. Of everyone who is entering the labour force in the past year, and of all the young people, 44 per cent could not find a job. That is 44 out of 100. If one were to walk down the street and count 100 people walking, 44 of those people have not found a job in the past year. Why? Do we lack the natural resources, the development? Do we lack the capital? Are there not people in companies who are ready to invest in our resources and in the development of our resources? Do we not have the brains in Canada to develop our industries and the technology?
We do have the resources and the people, Mr. Speaker. But we have to get some sanity into the government. It has to understand that a man's initiative is worth something. He cannot be stifled at every turn. When a man wants to invest his time and his money, allow him to do so. Let him create jobs. Do not turn on him with a budget, as the Minister of Finance did on November 12. Do not change the rules so that a man says, "They have created incentives for me 10 years ago, that is the same government that created tax incentives and said to go ahead and invest in apartment buildings, MURBs, to borrow money and put it into Registered Retirement Savings Plans and borrow money and invest it in our economy and our industries". They did this because these were incentives. They said, "We can do this". Those same incentives became loopholes to the Minister of Finance. The government introduced them as incentives, and then the same government calls them loopholes and states that it has to close them all off. It is slowly destroying the initiative of the Canadian people. This is the kind of thing that we will be seeing more of in time. We will create legislation that will help with the problems. Big government will move in and fix everything up. It is problems that governments create themselves, to begin with. I find it totally and absolutely unacceptable.
Clause 4 sets up the labour adjustment review board. There is no way that a five-member board will be able to handle the number of applications which this legislation will generate. What are we looking at on top of the labour review board? We are looking at an expanded public service. Once again we are looking at an appointed labour review board-go ahead, open the doors and bring in more public servants! That section of a department will probably expand because it will have to go across the country. I would suspect that perhaps there will be

December 14, 1981
Labour Adjustment Benefits
50 to 60 employees per province. I would suggest that perhaps in Ontario and Quebec it might jump up to 200 employees because the program must be administered. We are looking at a section of a department with perhaps 1,000 employees. The government cannot afford to expand the public service by one more person. Right now the government is taking in excess of 40 per cent of the gross national product to run government. It is like a cancerous growth which keeps expanding and expanding and yet is unproductive. It is consuming the wealth of the country. It is not creating, it is not manufacturing, it is not finding new resources, it is not developing resources. It is stifling free enterprise and the individual initiative of a man or a woman who wants to go out and do something, who wants to build, or who perhaps has visions of the country.
Let me turn to some of the clauses in the bill. I should like to read from Clause 3 entitled, "Designation of Industries". Of course the industries must be designated, but how will it be done? Clause 3 reads:
(1)	For the purposes of this act, the governor in council may, by order, designate any industry either generally or with respect to any region of Canada.
(2)	An industry may be designated generally pursuant to subsection (1) if the governor in council is satisfied that-
Let us look at some of the conditions, how this flows on. Certainly it is a public service document. I can see public servants sitting and writing the document. It continues:
(a)	the industry in Canada generally is undergoing significant economic adjustment of a non-cyclical nature by reason of import competition or by reason of industrial restructuring implemented pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada to encourage such restructuring;-
What the hell does that mean? We should think about what we are passing and what we are referring to committee. We should think of its wording. It throws up a smoke screen so that the public servant at the designated level will be empowered to do what he wishes. It continues:
(b)	the economic adjustment referred to in paragraph (a) is resulting in a significant loss of employment in the industry in Canada generally.
This is open to total interpretation. Clause 3(3) reads:
An industry may be designated with respect to any region of Canada pursuant to subsection (1) if the governor in council is satisfied that
(a)	the industry in that region is undergoing significant economic adjustment
of a non-cyclical nature; and
(b)	the economic adjustment referred to in paragraph (a) is resulting in a
severe economic disruption in that region and in a significant loss of employment in the industry in that region.
It goes on and on. The problem is that we do not read these bills. We are too ready to refer these bills to committee, bring them back here, and then many people rise to speak on them who have never even read them.
I do not want to be unkind to the minister because I think he is attempting to address a problem, but I should like to suggest that the problem is not acute; the cause of the problem is acute. The cause of the problem is the downturn in our economy. The downturn in our economy was caused primarily in the past two years by the National Energy Program disguised as the budget last year. It is being assaulted again in a
very direct manner by the budget introduced on November 12. I feel the minister should spend his time addressing that problem. The minister should go to cabinet to try to convince some of his colleagues to reconsider-and I am referring particularly to the Minister of Finance-some of the very retrogressive steps in the budget.
I should like to return to Clause 4 of Bill C-78 entitled, "Labour Adjustment Review Board" which reads:
There is hereby established a board, to be known as the Labour Adjustment Review Board, consisting of not more than five members.
Of course they are appointed members. Will they be appointed on their knowledge of industry, on their knowledge of the area, or because they are good Liberal hacks or supporters? I question this. Every time we see a board established, we know its political affiliation. It continues:
(2)	Each member of the board shall be appointed by the minister to hold office during pleasure.
It is the pleasure of the minister. It continues:
(3)	If any member of the board is absent or unable to act, the minister may appoint a person to act as a member for the time being, but no person so appointed has authority to act as a member for a period exceeding 90 days without the approval of the minister.
It is clearly open to abuse. I should like to turn to Clause 12 entitled, "Qualification for Benefits". What about a person who has worked for 25 years in a plant in Windsor, has been damn good at his job, has gone home every night to his family, was able to take them on a holiday, and is suddenly thrown out of work at 52 years of age, the prime of life? That is the prime of life, if one happens to be 51. Clause 12(1) reads:
The Commission may determine that an employee who has been certified under section 9 is qualified to receive labour adjustment benefits if
(a)	he is a Canadian citizen resident in Canada or a permanent resident within the meaning given that term by subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976;
(b)	he has been employed in the designated industry of which the Canadian establishment from which he was laid off is part for at least 10 years in the 15 years immediately preceding his effective date of lay-off and was paid for at least 1,000 hours of employment in that industry in each of those years;
(c)	he was, on his effective date of lay-off, not less than 54 years of age nor more than the earliest age at which a retiremenl pension could be paid to him under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, whether or not he has applied therefor;
(d)	he has claimed and exhausted all benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, to which he was entitled subsequent to his lay-off;
(e)	he is not receiving a retirement pension under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan; and
(f)	he has no present prospect of employment, whether with or without training or relocation assistance, or has accepted employment with earnings that are less than his average weekly insurable earnings.
That is no help. I can just see the situation in the Manpower office, or whatever this new section of the department is called. A young fellow of about 25 will interpret this and tell a man who has worked for 25 years that he is eligible for relocation. It is a sad day when we have to look to this kind of program in a country that has the vibrant, intelligent people that we have, who want to work.
The problem lies in the economic climate that we have created in Canada. We are not doing anything about the
December 14, 1981

problem that faces the man who must go home day after day after day and face his family. His wife and children only have to look at him to know what the situation is. I allude to the native people as well. What effort is this government making to improve things for a group in this country that is 90 per cent unemployed? It is just keeping them on welfare. How demeaning this is for the man who has to go home and face his wife and family. How demeaning it is for the man who is laid off.
The Minister of Finance should bring in legislation before Christmas that would get the economy going again. We are on the skids and will have 1.5 million people unemployed by March. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high and all across Canada people are frightened. They are looking to each and every one of us, whether Liberal or opposition, to do something to get the economy going. They are not looking for welfare handouts such as are provided by Bill C-78.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid off employees. When I read the bill, I find a number of loopholes and that there is every possible reason for not paying benefits to employees who are laid off. Almost all the government's policies appear to be designed to create massive unemployment in this country. The budget does it by discouraging investment and savings, by discouraging people from working. This bill promises hope of payment if someone is laid off from his job. If that happens, the person is put through a number of miserable investigations before he is told he will not receive any payment. It may be that he is the wrong age. Mr. Speaker, an unemployed person is an unemployed person. He does not have to be 51 or 54-he may be 36 or 24. He may have worked in an industry for ten years before being laid off, but when he is unemployed his kids get hungry and his wife bleeds when you prick her.
What is all this nonsense about a man having to work so many years before he can have benefits! There are people in this country who may have worked for seven years with a company but now that there is no work for them, their children are going hungry. But the government promises a man employment and then conducts an investigation to see if he is really unemployed.
Clause 4 provides for another investigation, by the commission. How many investigations are necessary to establish that a man is unemployed? What more does the government want to know? This bill is designed to fool the people and make them think they are getting something. But people are not so easily fooled, Mr. Speaker.
If the government wants to do something for the country, why does it not encourage industry? Why is it sending capital out of the country? Why is it sending people who are prepared to work out of the country? This government does not start industries, it stops them. There has been talk about Cold Lake and about Fort McMurray, but really, nothing is being done to try to get work going. Our people go down to the United States to get jobs.
Adjournment Debate
The unemployed in this country are unemployed, Mr. Speaker, and they do not need an investigation to show that. We buy millions of tons of coal from the United States which produces acid and sulphur, but we leave the Canadian coal miners without work. In this country we have coal that is almost sulphur free, but we continue to buy coal that is 5 per cent sulphur from another country. We export our jobs.
What is wrong with this government? Why does it not start some industries and entice people to invest their money? The budget does the opposite. It makes people ask what is the use of investing in this country. According to Bill C-48, if people do invest and make good, then the government will expropriate. This is becoming a socialist country. This government is leading the way to the worst kind of socialism. Even a socialist government would try to keep people working, but this government is trying to keep people unemployed. It wants to keep a mass of people unemployed and dependent on the government so that when they have to cry for bread they will do what the government tells them. That has been done in the world before. This Liberal government is trying to duplicate something that is deplorable, that is devastating, that is ruining this country. It had better wake up before the whole country goes down the tube and the government goes with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


John Horton McDermid: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, on December 4 of this year, I asked the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) a question about the participa-

December 14, 1981
Adjournment Debate
tion of the Quebec government in the Federal-Provincial Conference on Tourism. The minister confirmed that the Quebec government had refused to take part in a conference organized to discuss a national policy on tourism which had taken two years to develop and had been requested by the industry and all Canadian provinces. This refusal followed a decision made by the leader of the Parti Quebecois on November 9 of this year, by which all departments were forbidden to take part in Canadian federal-provincial conferences. At the Department of Agriculture, officials refused to take part in the symposium organized with the provinces here in Ottawa. The Conference on the Status of Women in Vancouver was boycotted by the Quebec government. The Conference of Justice Ministers was also boycotted because it was a federal-provincial conference.
Mr. Speaker, this evening, my question, which consists of two parts, is directed to the minister. First, what has been the impact on Quebecers of the partisan attitude of the leader of the Parti Quebecois, who is acting as the leader of his party rather than as the Premier of a responsible government elected to govern all Quebecers?
Second, and I hope my colleagues are listening, how long, Mr. Speaker, are Quebecers going to stand for this kind of attitude from their government? How long are Quebecers going to be deprived of federal-provincial conferences that are attended by all other ministers? How long are we going to be isolated and are we going to put up with the consequences of this decision? How long are the people of Quebec going to be the hostages of a separatist, independentist and sovereignist philosophy? The results are already apparent. Looking at La Presse of December 5, 1981, we see that Quebec lost 67,000 jobs this year, while the number of jobs in Ontario rose by 114,000. Mr. Speaker, we were not isolating Quebec when the government decided to expand the aeronautics industry and created 7,500 jobs in Quebec. Considerable progress was also made when Bombardier was given a grant of $150 million to develop urban transport in Mexico. We have not isolated Quebec, and the Quebec members here in Ottawa do not intend to take Quebec as hostage, but the leader of the Parti Quebecois seems to be eager to do so. Mr. Speaker, it seems that yesterday, Mr. Levesque decided to call on the Parti Quebecois and its militants to decide whether he should remain as leader of the party.
He asked for a referendum within his separatist clan. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to ask the Premier of Quebec to hold a referendum for all Quebecers, to find out whether they agree that Quebec should continue to be left out of all these federal-provincial conferences. Are Quebecers prepared to pay the very considerable price of such a decision? A referendum is necessary, Mr. Speaker, so that the premier can tell us exactly when and how he intends to develop a socioeconomic policy that will make us proud to be Quebecers within a federal structure. We cannot go on accepting this attitude, although Mr. Levesque, who is acting as the leader of a political party
while agreeing to bear the responsibilities of a premier, was elected to administer a province and to administer the socioeconomic interests of all Quebecers. What right does Mr. Levesque have to keep Quebec civil servants from coming here to exchange views with Canadian public servants on the subject of agriculture? Think of the many developments in agricultural technology that have taken place in the past few years! What right does Mr. Levesque have to forbid civil servants to come and discuss a national tourism policy and what right does he have to forbid the civil service to take part in an exchange in views? On what does his government base its legitimacy.
I could not sit still before such a near catastrophic situation as concerns employment in Quebec, where 67,000 jobs were lost while 114,000 jobs were created in Ontario during the same period. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said at a meeting in Montreal yesterday that the Parti Quebecois has helped the privileged members of the public and parapublic sectors at the expense of the workers and the private sector. I would therefore like to ask the minister what have been the consequences of such an attitude.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to reply fully to this question, I would have to speak even longer than the hon. member, but I shall try to limit my answer to the non-participation of Quebec in the federal-provincial conference of tourism ministers this week and to complete the reply given by the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe).
First, as we have seen, the Quebec National Assembly, through the Minister of Agriculture, said that agriculture was not an economic concern for Quebec. It is therefore not surprising to be told today that this conference on tourism is not important for tourism. As everyone knows, Mr. Levesque has his own concept of Quebec and its economy, and if history repeats itself as on the issue of independence, he has the time and the means to lead Quebec to bankruptcy. I therefore share the disappointment of the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) and, like him, I deplore the absence of Quebec, which shows a lack of understanding of the economic importance of tourism in Canada, and especially in Quebec. It is indeed a vital industry for the whole country, being as it is the source of more than $15 billion in annual revenues for Canada, that is 5 per cent of its gross national product, 1.1 million jobs for Canadians in over 100,000 businesses and $6 billion in tax revenues for all levels of government. Besides being essential that industry is therefore necessary for Quebec and Quebecers alike.
But for anyone who does not want Canada to have a future and would rather see Quebec out of Confederation it is obviously necessary to break away from the various economic levers and, once again, Mr. Levesque must hoodwink Quebecers in an attempt to promote his argument. Unfortunately, it is
December 14, 1981

also costly. That reason in itself would be enough to inspire sorrow, but we must add that Quebec's non-participation to the conference is not a disappointment for that reason. In the past that province did indeed play an active role in setting up the national tourism plan. Quebec was the provincial representative within a working group of three parties responsible for compiling the Canadian participation, provincial or territorial and private, in drafting the outline of the structure of the national tourism plan, considering especially that Quebec was among the first provinces which said that they were prepared to contribute to the establishment of that plan.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, just as the hon. member for Laval we must also regret that Quebec, and particularly the Premier of Quebec, spend more time trying to unite the genuine and the bad separatists. If he were to take more seriously his duties as premier it would undoubtedly be possible to work harder and more efficiently for the economy of Quebec and, consequently, for the economy of Canada.


PIPELINES-EXTENSION OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO EAST COAST. (B). DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in addressing the House tonight was to consider the matter of the extension of the natural gas pipeline from its current terminus in Montreal through Quebec City in the province of Quebec to the New Brunswick border and on to Halifax in the province of Nova Scotia, then extended to the Strait of Canso in the same province. However, having listened to two members in the House from the province of Quebec engage in what I can only describe as Quebec bashing, I seriously wonder whether the pipeline, which must of necessity pass through the province of Quebec to gain access to the maritime provinces, will ever be built. Unless we can right some of these differences in Canada, and unless we can bring together the province of Quebec, the government of that province and the Government of Canada we will have no hope of success for the kind of energy and other national projects which are absolutely essential to the welfare of this nation. I ask hon. members from the province of Quebec not to bring their squabbles to the floor of this House but to consider the national interests and all those who are not involved in this federal government-Quebec government dispute.
On November 9, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) when the government would authorize the extension of the Canadian natural gas pipeline to the east coast, and particularly to Nova Scotia, as recommended by the National Energy Board. I was concerned that the government's delay in rendering its decision would not only retard construction of the pipeline extension but would jeopardize the whole project, already two years behind schedule. Now, finally, by an order in council apparently made on December 12, 1981, almost six months late, the government has granted approval to the pipeline extension. But we are still left with this question: will the pipeline extension now be built?
Adjournment Debate
I believe the answer to that question, even at this late date, is in doubt. Why? Because the National Energy Board must process an application for a certificate and in doing so must review and reconsider several matters still unsettled. Those matters include assurance of natural gas supplies from western Canada, evidenced by contracts for transport, transmission and distribution; financing of the project which will inevitably include consumer price and the considerations of the level of federal subsidization.
Another point, Mr. Speaker, is that final designs for the actual pipeline, which will inevitably involve questions of interference with private property rights and environmental impact, will have to be decided. So the extension of the pipeline is far from assured, and the purpose and intent of this lengthy exercise may be lost to the detriment of those concerned, especially east coast energy consumers.
Let us consider the government's record on the matter of the natural gas pipeline extension. It should be noted that the project costs, when the extension was first proposed, were estimated at $1.2 billion. Now costs have soared to over $2 billion for the 1700 kilometre line and the laterals involved.
The first point is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when he was serving as Leader of the Opposition in January, 1980, during the course of an election campaign promised the gas pipeline extension. Notwithstanding this promise, the National Energy Board refused permission for the pipeline and later denied and appeal from that refusal. Then, Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Program, when it was finally unveiled in this House in October, 1980 with the budget documents, guaranteed the building of a natural gas pipeline. At that point in time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources finally recognized the dependence of the east coast, and particularly the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, on foreign oil and the difficulties that flowed from that dependence.
Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of electricity generated in the province of Nova Scotia was generated from foreign crude oil. That amount has been reduced substantially-to less than half that amount-but there is still a very substantial dependence on foreign crude oil supplies.
The deficit applicable to eastern Canada in terms of imported foreign crude amounts to some 400,000 gallons annually, and that involves a $2.5 billion subsidy on the part of the Government of Canada in order to pay for those foreign oil supplies.
During that same period, Mr. Speaker, the cost of gas to the consumer has risen to $1.80 a gallon in Halifax, Nova Scotia, today. That is almost 50 cents more than the $1.36 a gallon the government promised would be the limit on the price of gasoline under the proposals which it advanced in the federal election campaign. But, more important, Mr. Speaker, home heating oil has advanced in price and is approximately $1.35 per gallon in Nova Scotia. Mr Speaker, that is greatly in excess of the amount of the cost of home heating oil at the

December 14, 1981
Adjournment Debate
time this government took office. But this problem might be partially alleviated, Mr. Speaker, if the guarantees in the National Energy Program were fulfilled. Those guarantees include the delivery of natural gas to Halifax and that area at the same prices paid in Toronto. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the government guaranteed some $500 million to subsidize the extension of the east coast pipelines and other pipeline for which construction is required.
The question today is whether the government will deliver on the promises contained in the National Energy Program. First we must ask: why the delay? The National Energy Program indicated that natural gas would be delivered to Halifax by the end of 1983. Now the estimate is that we will not receive natural gas until at least 1985. In the meantime, people on the east coast will pay atrocious prices for gasoline, and particularly the much increased price for home heating oil.
There is more involved than simply the delivery of natural gas. The pipeline will enable the east coast to participate in the Arctic Pilot Project which, in turn, involves the construction of a very substantial LNG terminal at a point yet undisclosed on the east coast. The project itself will involve the expenditure of millions of dollars and many man-years of employment. The goal of the government's policy, which includes-and has to include-delivery of natural gas to the east coast, is the creation of circumstances in which those on the east coast will pay the same price for energy as the average Canadian pays. That has been the goal of the Government of Nova Scotia in its energy policy, to ensure that Nova Scotians and others on the east coast have the same benefits as other Canadians.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will not spend any time on the curious arithmetic of the hon. member opposite but, rather, I will respond to his points about the Trans Quebec and Maritimes Pipeline. He will recall that on November 9 the minister stated that this pipeline project is one of the top priorities of the government. The government has committed considerable financial support for this pipeline because it is, in fact, a key element of our strategy to reduce the vulnerability to supply interruptions of those areas of eastern Canada that are presently dependent on imported oil.
The pipeline extension will open up new domestic markets for natural gas from western Canada. Under the terms of the September 1 memorandum of agreement between the governments of Canada and Alberta, Alberta will make market development incentive payments to the federal government to help fund national programs to expand domestic natural gas distribution systems, thereby making this less expensive energy source available to more Canadians. The governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are strongly supportive of the concept of natural gas utilization in the Maritimes. There is widespread backing of the TQ & M Pipeline project.
In beginning work on the gas pipeline extension to Quebec city the company had run into some difficulties, including
problems with labour unions, and these resulted in some construction delays. Moreover, the company had encountered problems relating mainly to route selection. Normally, a company obtains approval from the province in which it plans to build a pipeline before appearing before the National Energy Board. In this case the company appeared before the NEB prior to Quebec route approval. Subsequently Quebec insisted on route changes which were later endorsed by the National Energy Board.
On November 20 the minister announced that the pipeline company would file a modified routing application with the NEB for the section of the proposed line between Levis-Lau-zon and Edmundston, New Brunswick. After discussions this past autumn it was agreed that the company would be asked to reconsider its project for the La Pocatiere-Matane section with a view to filing a new application with the board. The company plans to ask the National Energy Board for authority to route the pipeline through Riviere-du-Loup and Cabano before its entrance into New Brunswick. This route modification will facilitate the connection of a lateral that would serve at least the Riviere-du-Loup-Matane axis. As a consequence of the company's decision to file a new application, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) recommended to his cabinet colleagues that they approve the NEB's recommendation to construct a pipeline to Nova Scotia which was handed down last August. Cabinet approval was given on December 10.
Within a few days it can be expected that the NEB will issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to the company to build the pipeline through to the Maritimes, subject to the terms and conditions spelled out in the board's recommendation to the cabinet last August. These requirements include completion of purchase and sales contracts, financial information, and final pipeline design data.
All these initiatives provide assurances that the difficulties that had confronted this major pipeline project are being successfully resolved. There is every indication that natural gas deliveries will reach New Brunswick by 1984 and Nova Scotia by 1985.


THE BUDGET-EFFECT ON FORMER CNR AND VIA RAIL EMPLOYEES. (B) REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERCEDE ON BEHALF OF RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak tonight about a question I raised on December 9 regarding the budget of November 12 and the effect the budget will have on former CNR and VIA Rail employees. At that time the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) said my concerns about CNR and VIA employees would be considered. In his response he talked about the concern of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to the equity issue. It is on that matter of equity that I want to address my concern to the minister tonight. I know that one of the concerns in the budget was to close some of the loopholes for high-income earners. I remind the House that these loopholes were created
December 14, 1981

by the Liberal government. Regardless of that fact, this budget is hurting those who were employed by CNR or VIA.
It was a government action which reduced the number of trains running across Canada. There was a CTC hearing in my constituency. The general feeling there was that it was a farce. There certainly was not enough time between when the briefs were presented and the decision was rendered for the commissioners to consider all the points of view that were expressed.
This is not only true in the Dauphin area. My colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has run into the same problem. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) said that people in Trans-cona talked to him about the problem the November 12 budget places on those who have been forced to retire and take an early pension because of the railway cutbacks.
In the last couple of weeks I have been approached by farmers wanting to retire early. They face the same problem as they cannot put their earnings into an RRSP or any kind of annuity. I would point out that these earnings are different from those of people with high salaries or incomes on an annual basis. These are lifetime savings.
Those who talked to me stated that they want to put this money into a retirement income. They do not want to go on welfare or be recipients of some kind of social allowance. They would rather provide for themselves.
The November 12 budget also hits the small businessman who might be forced to sell because of ill health or might wish to retire early. The government talks about equity in this budget. I submit it should designate some of these once-in-a-lifetime earnings as non-taxable.
I wish to inquire whether the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has made any representations to the Minister of Finance with regard to CNR and VIA employees. The Minister of Transport acknowledged that he received a letter from me four months ago concerning VIA and CNR employees. There has been no action. All I have received is an acknowledgement.
If a representation has been made on behalf of these employees to the Minister of Finance, I would like to know when, what representation was made and what action can be expected on this matter. The year-end is near. Decisions have to be made. I would like to know what action has been planned. This budget was introduced late in the year, on November 12. Will it be possible for some of this bulk income to be rolled over to next year? What action does the minister
Adjournment Debate
plan to take on this very serious problem for many of my constituents and those of my colleagues?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to start out by indicating to the hon. member that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has indeed made representations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on this very issue and the issue of others who are concerned about the effects of the budget or what they perceive to be the effects of the budget on the question of retiring allowances. I know the question was raised and answered previously by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) in his response to the question by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky). I think the hon. member should understand that, although certain options have been closed as a result of budget proposals, notwithstanding any possible adjustments that Minister of Finance may very well introduce in the near future, it is important for members to realize a replacement has been brought forward for some of these averaging provisions in the form of the new forward averaging system which offers benefits precisely in these kinds of situations that are a cause of concern to the member for Dauphin. An individual, in some circumstances, can no longer contribute his severance payment or retiring allowance to an RRSP-that is true-those circumstances being the ones where he already has a vested pension benefit. However, he can elect to forward average any income in excess of his usual income over the past three years. The net effect is that for a typical retiring allowance, his after-tax income may be somewhat lower, but it would be in the range of $50 per year over a ten-year period, or a loss, at most, of one or two per cent. At the same time, the person who is using the forward-averaging provision has more cash available in the year of receipt under the new system because he does not have to pay the entire amount of his retiring allowance into an RRSP. As a result, the individual can earn additional earnings on those, which will mean in most cases that the forward-averaging provision provides at least equal benefits to those benefits available from income-averaging annuity contracts in the past or from the RRSP option.
I think the hon. member should appreciate that the new forward-income averaging system merits careful attention and that its prospective benefits apparently are not yet fully understood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.28 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.