1982-04-02

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. MICHEL JOBERT, MINISTER OF STATE AND MINISTER OF EXTERNAL TRADE OF THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of calling the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of Mr. Michel Jobert, Minister of State and Minister of External Trade of the Republic of France.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, over the past two to three years we have been promised that new and large boundaries and guidelines will be created with respect to regional development incentive grants. In that time nothing has changed despite the fact the expansion of the grant program would provide incentives to industry either to locate in new areas or enlarge existing facilities, thus helping solve the problems of job creation and regional disparity in many areas not now included in the program. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the minister responsible immediately announce changes involving regional development incentive grants which would result in the establishment of new and enlarged boundaries.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On October 9 of last year the International Joint Commission said it would rule today on the fate of the Skagit Valley in British Columbia. The IJC is meeting at this moment behind closed doors in Washington, D.C., and may make a decision without a Canadian chairman because the Liberal government has left the position vacant for over a year. In order to protect the Skagit Valley from being flooded by Liberal indifference, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House support the call for public hearings into the Skagit Valley issue, which is supported by all parties in this House, and that because of the Liberal government's failure to appoint a Canadian chairman to the IJC, an allparty committee be struck today to seek a Canadian of high repute who can serve on this important bilateral body.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRICE OF GASOLINE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, at present gasoline prices in White Rock, British Columbia, are about 30 cents a gallon higher than in the State of Washington just a few miles away. The United States price reflects the world price, whereas gasoline prices in Canada have almost doubled in the last two years, most of the increases reflecting increases in taxation. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate clearly whether it is the policy of the government to make consumers in Canada pay higher than world prices for gasoline to support excessive government taxation which finances programs which do not lead to energy self-sufficiency.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
16090________________________________


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in only 28 days Canadians will have to file their 1981 income tax returns under threat of heavy fine and imprisonment should they fail to comply. However, the government has not even introduced the tax legislation emanating from the ill-conceived November budget which will dictate the taxes people will be forced to pay. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Minister of Finance immediately avail himself of one of the following options:
(a)	Introduce the pertinent tax amendments;
(b)	extend the April 30 deadline for tax returns; or, preferably,
(c)	resign and take the Prime Minister with him.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, Canada, indeed the whole industrialized world, is sitting on an environmental time bomb. The very health and welfare of our children and of our children's children are at stake depending on, whether we act now to halt the poisoning of the planet, and how this is done. Dioxin, acid rain, PCBs, methyl mercury, and captan are only the tip of the iceberg, not to mention the stuff we deliberately put in our food, such as red dye No. 2 and sodium nitrite. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the cabinet in general to consider the setting up of an independent national hazardous substances research council so that we can begin to make such research a priority to prepare ourselves for an already risky future, and that this research be partially funded by a levy on all the corporations which, over the years, have so carelessly and selfishly endangered the future of human life in the idolatrous pursuit of profit.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 2, 1982


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPPING
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, Canada's 1982 Great Lakes shipping season starts Monday under a very serious cloud of uncertainty. The number of ships coming through the Great Lakes is down by estimates ranging up to 25 per cent of the total fleet. Lower levels of economic activity and higher energy costs are cited as being among the major reasons for the slump. Given the impact of high energy costs on water-borne commerce, particularly accentuated by the discriminatory marine fuels surcharge tax, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the government take immediate steps to roll back or rescind the discriminatory tax on Canada's shipping fleet so that it might be restored to its full competitive position.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gary Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I note that this morning's news includes reports that Argentinian troops have landed and claimed possession of the Falkland Islands, historically a British protectorate. Ninety-eight per cent of the residents are of British descent and they have expressed a desire to maintain their British roots. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House resoundingly condemn Argentina for its overt military aggression and send a letter of protest to the President of Argentina requesting the immediate withdrawal of military forces so that a peaceful and democratic solution to this conflict may be attained.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 2, 1982


SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the Secretary of State's decision to break up the Association canadienne-fran?ais de l'Ontario by dealing directly with its regional branches; in view of the fact that this goes against the wishes of the majority of the members of this association and that the government's real reason for taking this action has been the positions taken by the ACFO during the debate on the Constitution, I move, seconded by the member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the House condemn the attitude of the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) and recommend that the Secretary of State accept the ACFO's compromise solution for financing that organization.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, whereas Canadian airline employees have detected a dramatic increase in the number of loaded firearms, and instances of restricted articles being transported in baggage and freight shipped on passenger aircraft, items which include toxic gases, leaking chemicals, acids and explosives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Minister of Transport immediately investigate the aforementioned serious situation and take corrective action.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions
U5)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has taken his "Show and Tell" on the budget on the road, but he won't show and he won't tell Canadians what, if any, further changes he is planning. In his absence, therefore, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, if I can get his attention.
The Globe and Mail today says that finance officials are referring to the November budget and subsequent revisions as a working paper for a new budget. Could the Prime Minister tell Canadians exactly what is the status of the November budget? Is it a budget, or is it a working paper for a new budget? Or is it a myth?


Mr. Nielsen:: It is a can of worms.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member could be reminded of the well-known rule of the House that we should not be asked to comment on newspaper reports-and for good cause. This is an erroneous report.


CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT REFERRED TO BY MINISTER
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's response reminds me of that old saying, "Budgets, budgets everywhere, but not a bill insight."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: The government's coyness over the budget is creating great uncertainty and hardship on many Canadians who are attempting to file their income tax returns and run their affairs. Now the minister is further confusing businessmen by telling businessmen at his meetings that there is a new document which is at the Queen's Printer and is being translated. What is that document, and when will it be presented to the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance answered that question in answer to a question put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Minister of Finance said that there was going to be a comprehensive ways and means motion which would permit various interested parties to examine the proposed bill in detail.


Erik Nielsen: An omnibus ways and means motion.
16092

April 2, 1982
Oral Questions REQUEST FOR TAX DETAILS


Pat Carney: If the finance minister were clear on what he is proposing, we would not have to ask these questions continually on behalf of Canadians, who are thoroughly confused. These parlour games would be fun, except that in the real world they are creating real casualties. There are 10,000 miners in B.C. who this summer will be on temporary or permanent lay-off. That includes the Cominco smelter and mine at Trail and Kimberley, which has survived a great depression, World War II, 14 years of Trudeau government, and still cannot survive this budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Cominco will have to shut down this summer for the first time in 40 years. When is the government going to end this charade and tell Canadians what they are going to pay and when they are going to pay it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I fail to see really how Cominco's fate is linked to the hon. lady's question about a detailed Ways and Means motion.


Erik Nielsen: It is linked to your government.


FILING OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to the questions previously asked. The other day the Prime Minister suggested that Canadians should follow the 163 Ways and Means motions presently filed as a result of the November 12 budget, in preparing their income tax returns. The Prime Minister failed to mention that there were no ways and means motions filed with respect to the December 18 statement. There have been other statements by the Minister of Finance across the country. There is speculation everywhere that changes are going to be made or have been made.
Could the Prime Minister tell this House if and when new ways and means motions are going to be filed, so that people can have some understanding of where they are going? The Prime Minister must realize the uncertainty that is being caused by the general feeling that this budget is causing great damage to the community.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks if and when a new Ways and Means motion will be filed. The Minister of Finance said quite clearly in answer to a question by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as I have repeated in the House now, that there will be a detailed Ways and Means motion which will be put before this House, a practice which has been followed many, many times-


Erik Nielsen: Never like this.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and which was announced in the very budget read by the member for St. John's West when he was the Tory finance minister.


Erik Nielsen: There never was this delay.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is nothing new about this and there is nothing new about the rule that the taxpayer must file his report on the basis of the Ways and Means motions on the dates that have been announced. There are frequently amendments brought in when the detailed tax bills are brought forth. There may be some in this case, or there may not. If there are, the taxes will be adjusted in consequence.


Erik Nielsen: The Department of National Revenue is in chaos.


DATE OF FILING
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell a tourist operator, for example, filing his 1981 tax return, what kind of capital cost allowance he is allowed in filing that return? When he buys a lamp, towel or something of that nature, does he write it off in full as the old law says, or is it half capital cost allowance? What do those who were students do with respect to money they thought they were getting back on their returns which they planned to use to pay their student loans? What about farmers who have bought equipment; do they depreciate it in full or at half depreciation rates? Can the Prime Minister tell us where we are going? Is this uncertainty going to continue?
It is now nearly five months since the budget. It has been changed and altered, and changed again. Will the Prime Minister come clean with the people of Canada today and state on what date these new Ways and Means motions will be filed? Will they be filed before the Easter recess?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised if there is confusion in the minds of the people of Canada, because the opposition has been endeavouring for the past three months to create that confusion. I wish they would follow the time-honoured rules of taking the budget statements and the dates announced there for tax changes as the rules. There have been changes to every budget since I have been here. There are always some amendments, whether it be in one or another aspect of the bills, that are accepted. There may be some this time as well. If there were not, the opposition would accuse us of being stubborn and unreasonable.
There are already four of five tax bills before the House. They have been debated by this House, one having to do with housing relief as a most recent example. Therefore the budget is proceeding, the tax bills are proceeding, and there will be, as there is after every budget, a debate on the bills when they come before the House.
April 2, 1982


LEVEL OF DIOXIN IN LAKE ONTARIO FISH
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday the Ontario environment ministry found in a study that dioxin levels in Lake Ontario are the highest they have ever been. The study showed there were 27.4 parts per trillion of dioxin found in trout, and 59 parts per trillion found in minnows, in the Port Credit area. Will the minister advise Canadians who live in that community and who fish in Lake Ontario, in the immediate area of Port Credit, if in her opinion it is advisable for them to continue to eat fish found in Lake Ontario?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I did not receive notice of this question which involves a recent and technical situation. For the benefit of Canadians, I would prefer to look at the dossier first. I was in committee all morning and, therefore, did not have occasion to look at it. I will report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


MEASUREMENT OF DANGER LEVEL
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. The minister's department set a level of 20 parts per trillion as being a danger level for fish found in Lake Ontario. The government of New York State set ten parts per trillion as being the danger level. The Ontario environment minister indicated that, in his view, dioxin levels in Lake Ontario present a long-term potential danger even for people drinking water from Lake Ontario. Does the minister intend to reduce the danger level of 20 parts per trillion to at least ten parts per trillion as has been done in New York State?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of new information received by my department, but in my last briefing on the question of the levels which we judge safe or not, we did not have reason to change ours. I will inquire and add that to the reply which I owe the hon. member.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET UNITED STATES GOVERNORS
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, the Premier of Ontario has indicated that he is so concerned about the dangerous chemical leakage into Lake Ontario that he intends to meet with the Governor of New York and the Governor of Michigan in the near future to express his concern. Would the minister agree to do exactly the same thing?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think it is an excellent initiative to be taken by the Premier of Ontario. We already have committees at the federal level which are working in close co-
Oral Questions
operation with the States. And, of course, the fight to reduce unacceptable levels of dioxin is a primary objective of my government.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for metric conversion in Canada. In his role as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs he is supposed to guard Canadians against false and misleading advertising. Yet, as minister responsible for the Metric Commission, he is in fact dispensing blatantly false and misleading advertising to consumers about going metric. Will the minister explain just one misstatement from the pamphlet called "Moving to Metric," and it is riddled with misstatements, which tells us, "Conversion in Canada is being done on a voluntary basis". Does this signal a change in the government's metrication policy?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: No more fines or imprisonment?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as far as unwarranted statements and misleading advertising are concerned, these have certainly been indulged in by the member for Peterborough and some of his colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party.


STAFFING OF COMMISSION KIOSKS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, at least the minister refrained from calling me a fanatic as he brands all people who happen to disagree with the government's metrication policy.
My supplementary question concerns Metric Commission kiosks, or advertising booths, which are dispensing this stuff. They are popping up in supermarkets and shopping malls across the country. Can the minister for metric tell us how many people were hired to operate these booths and how they were hired, since the government positions were not advertised? How did prospective employees know about these jobs?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, the question could appropriately be placed on the Order Paper and then be given a written reply. I should be glad to provide one, if the hon. member wishes to submit a written question. I any case, I can assure him that these booths are providing a public information service to the Canadian people and that the information is very well received by consumers across the country.

April 2, 1982
Oral Questions


SHIPPING
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The government will be fully aware of the very serious decline in the number of Great Lake ships which will leave for the Seaway when it opens on Monday. To a large measure this is due to the marine fuel surcharge. At jeopardy here is not only the lowered activity of the Great Lakes fleet but it is, in a very direct way, a threat to the jobs of 1,100 and upwards to 1,700 Canadian seamen. Would the government consider, as a serious step to protect those jobs and enhance the competitive position of the Canadian Great Lakes fleet, rescinding or rolling back the very significant marine fuel surcharge tax?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member, first, that there is no surcharge on Canadian lake ships employed in shipping between Canadian ports. The surcharge applies only when oil is used for international trips, and it applies equally to American or Canadian ships on the same basis. At the present time this charge is rather minimal, as a matter of fact.
I remind my hon. friend that all over North America the transportation industry generally is facing a difficult situation. This applies to railways, trucking, airways, and the shipping industry in general. The industry is having a difficult time, but not because of the cost of fuel. It is because of a slowdown in the economy generally in North America as well as in Europe. The surcharge is a very minimal factor in the general operations of a company, and it applies only to international trips.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my concern is about the protection of jobs. If the minister wants to dismiss lightly $8 million or $10 million in discriminatory charges with respect to marine fuels, that is his business. I think he should remove them.


EMPLOYMENT OF CANADIAN SEAMEN
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to someone over there who is concerned, perhaps the Prime Minister. What steps might the government take on a fairly urgent basis to ensure that these 1,100, 1,200 and possibly as many as 1,700 Canadian seamen do not in fact lose their jobs as a result of the slump to which the minister has just referred?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
Canadian shipping companies enjoy an advantage over their American competitors in terms of shipping between Canadian ports. They enjoy a benefit. They have enjoyed it in the past. We in this House are all concerned about unemployment in this country. We want the economy to go into high gear as soon as possible but, as my hon. friend knows, the whole world, the whole western world, is facing this particular crisis at the present time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the minister has been delaying the payment or the announcement of the pay-out under the beef stabilization program for three months, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture would make an announcement to the House of Commons on what the pay-out will be, and when it will be. I hope he will not reply to my question with his pat answer, "Soon".


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Epp:: Now what are you going to say?


Eugene Whelan: -the cattlemen's association with which we met about three weeks ago is fully aware that if we used the Agricultural Stabilization Act as it is, there would be no payout for 1981 production. What the association is asking for is that 1 go past the statutory 90 per cent. It is suggesting I go to 95 per cent. That is being considered at the present time.


REQUEST PAYMENTS NOT BE LINKED WITH SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, 1 am wondering if the minister will guarantee cattle producers that the announcement about which he has been talking for some time, and which he might make in three weeks, will not be linked in any way with supply management.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two things. Under the Agricultural Stabilization Act it is statutory that we make an announcement concerning the 90 per cent pay-out of the last five years' average using the current year's input costs. The other program is a program which has been suggested by various commissions over a period of time. They have suggested different ways of marketing beef. We hope to be announcing that program in three or four weeks. I believe the other day I said three weeks. We are working on that at the present time, but that has very little to do with the program we are talking about under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
April 2, 1982


INTERNATIONAL MARITIME TRANSPORT
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and is supplementary to the question by the member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.
Could the minister inform the House whether he agrees with statements made by representatives of the Canadian shipping industry who held a convention here in Ottawa this week? They felt that levying the surcharge on marine fuel expended on international voyages in inland waters on Canadian entrepreneurs was discriminatory, and also that the surcharge was an infringement of the National Transportation Act, since it applied only to marine transportation and not to railway or highway transportation, and finally, that a large part of the traffic in American goods carried by Canadian entrepreneurs would now be carried by American shippers who, as a result of the surcharge would now be economically more attractive.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I must say I disagree with this assumption. First of all, we must not forget that there are certain taxes for land carriers, for instance trucks, which are different from those levied on marine carriers. We have always had taxation systems that varied depending on the type of transportation.
As far as international transportation is concerned, we have the same arrangement for American and Canadian ships, but there is no evidence that this factor has had any effect on the preference for Canadian or American carriers in international transportation.
Finally, I should like to remind my colleague that Canadian carriers have a considerable advantage in Canadian ports, and that this advantage could be put to good competitive use, even on international routes.
* *
*


OIL IMPORT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns a tax rip-off of about 18 cents a gallon to Canada's oil consumers. Why, in his announcement yesterday, did the minister not change the flat rate compensation formula, which does not consider the actual cost of imported crude but only the average, thereby today over-compensating certain oil refiners and oil importers in eastern Canada by as much as $9 a barrel?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend does
Oral Questions
not understand the oil compensation charge very well. As he says, it is an average, and for every cent of advantage that a particular refiner might get on a cargo, he or his competitors will lose an equivalent cent on other cargoes because the charge is an average. The total net result, as far as importers are concerned, is exactly zero. For any money they will make on one cargo they, or somebody else, will lose it on another cargo, so there is no advantage over-all in terms of the import compensation charge.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, perhaps I do not understand the complexities of the oil compensation charge, but I certainly do not understand the minister either, because the minister has come out with a policy to reduce exports, reduce prices, involve himself in swaps, and all the rest of it. If it does not make any difference, why bother?


REQUEST FOR CONSUMER REBATE
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, will the minister assure the House that he will institute either a better reporting system, involve himself in complete swaps, or at least, if there is over-compensation, institute a rebate so that the consumer can get money back from the over-subsidizing of oil importers in eastern Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member prefaced his last question with "if". I want to assure him that the system is built in such a way that there cannot be a profit made over-all in the system by the refiners or the companies. It is just impossible under the rules of the system which have been established.
As far as the total charge is concerned, the agreement with Alberta specifies quite clearly that the government should not make a profit, and the net result at the end of the year should be that the oil compensation charge should be equivalent to the cost of importing. If adjustments are required, we will, of course, make them, but the system, as it is built, is such that the industry cannot end up with an over-all profit.


REMISSION OF TAX ON NORTHERN LIVING ALLOWANCE
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. Earlier this week the Minister of State for Mines was visiting New York, and she was surprised to be addressed by several interested people in the United States on the future of the northern living allowance. I gather she was unprepared and unable to answer questions put to her down there. She has had some difficulty explaining why it is the government refuses to extend the remission order while at the same time it has not

April 2, 1982
Oral Questions
come forward with an acceptable alternative program. I understand that the minister has privately told many people that she is in favour of extending the remission order. I want to ask the minister if she has made that recommendation to the Minister of Finance and other members of cabinet and, if so, why they are not acting upon it.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to correct the impression that the hon. member has left that the mission to New York was not successful. On the contrary, it was a very successful mission. In fact, the Minister of State (International Trade) is reading the press reports of that mission at the moment. I was able to reassure the investors in New York that their investments are indeed welcome in Canada.
As to the northern remission order, I was very pleased and somewhat surprised at the sophistication of the questions regarding this. I replied that the government, as has been said over and over again in the House, is committed to having a program in place to replace the remission order that is currently in effect, because we think it is inequitable. We feel that if we are going to do this it must apply fairly to citizens of the north and of isolated communities. The questions were answered fully in New York.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that the industry, including United States' interests in our iron ore industry, is very concerned because of the uncertainty created by the government. The replacement of the present system with respect to taxation will have a destabilizing effect on the northern economy, and the industry wants to know what the alternative is going to be.
On Tuesday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was quite firm in dealing with the steelworkers who came here to see him. He told them that the only alternative system being considered was a grant-based system. I want to know if the minister agrees with the notion that the only alternative program would be something involving a per capita grant in the order of $500 per person. If that is the case, there is no purpose in further discussion of this matter. Would the minister please clarify this point?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I was not at that meeting, and 1 do not think the hon. member was either. I think he is taking some stabs in the dark at the moment. I should like to inform him that a number of people are looking at a number of policies. A grant system is just one, but it is not the only route. We are consulting with the mining companies. A whole process of consultation is under way which includes the labour unions. Before we come forward with the policy we must make sure that all those
involved, including the mining companies, know exactly what direction we are taking, so that there will be stability in the north.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration about the thousands of lay-offs in northern Canada, specifically in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, in such places as Flin Flon with Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. Limited, Rattan Lake, Leaf Rapids, and Creighton, for instance. Can the minister explain why it is that the disastrous economic policies of the government have resulted in the layoff of thousands of northern Canadians? They have lost their jobs and do not have a future. Could he explain how these economic policies have impacted so negatively on northern Canada?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher makes one basic, illogical error, and that is to say that it is government policies responsible for the problems in the mines. As my colleague has indicated in the House several times, and as have many others, the mining industry in particular is facing a severe depression on a world-wide level. As a result, there are no customers for our mining products. I think the hon. member is learned enough to know that if the ore and other products are not sold, then there will be no work. That is why the lay-offs have occurred.
In the meantime, Madam Speaker, we are trying to protect the workers by offering them a number of alternative measures, such as a work-sharing program. We have now signed over 530 work-sharing agreements across the country. We have the unemployment insurance program in place which provides income security. We are using the full arsenal of programs to provide for some income security protection during these difficult times when the international markets are not working the way we would like.


JOB-CREATION MEASURES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I find it passing strange that whenever a job is created in the private or public sector the minister takes credit for it, but when jobs are lost the fault lies with someone else.
I should like to ask the minister if he has been approached by officials of the government of Manitoba, for instance, to see how these jobs can be restored and how people can stay in the area so that when there is an upturn in the world market they will be available for work. We should not lose these valuable people.
April 2, 1982


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that we have had discussions with officials of the government of Manitoba. We have offered to use Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act to create alternative employment. This would require the co-operation of the mining companies, the unions, and the provincial governments. We are encouraging the provincial governments to sign these agreements. We have signed with the province of Ontario and we are negotiating with several others. If the hon. member could use his good offices with the province of Manitoba to provide further encouragement, we would appreciate that. Our offer stands and we are prepared to respond as soon as Manitoba takes the initiative.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the hostile actions of Argentina in attacking the Falkland Islands, a fellow democratic territory with Canada in the Commonwealth of Nations, can the minister report to the House on the situation there this morning? Can he tell the House what action is being taken by the Government of Canada to protest these unwarranted attacks on the Falkland Islands by Argentina?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it appears that Argentinian forces either actually have landed or are in the process of landing in the Falkland Islands and other islands in that group. This is deeply shocking to the Government of Canada. It is shocking that a country such as Argentina should have recourse to violence in this way, in a situation in which there has been no change and where there is no reason of any kind for such action. This is particularly so because it flies in the face of a General Assembly resolution in 1976 when Argentina joined with the majority of countries in urging the parties to the dispute not to try to alter the situation unilaterally by force. In these circumstances we take a very serious view of the situation, and we will be communicating that view to the Government of Argentina.


TESTING OF UNITED STATES MISSILES IN CANADA
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister knows, the consultative group on disarmament met his ambassador for disarmament and senior officials from his department yesterday, and they are meeting again today. He also knows that this group includes such distinguished representatives as George Ignatieff of the United Nations Association, William Epstein of Pugwash, Murray Thompson of Project Ploughshares, and many others. The group has expressed enormous concern and
Oral Questions
frustration because its opinions and advice are never sought by people at the policy-making level, or by the minister. When he has this consultative group on disarmament available, why did the minister not consult with it before arranging a framework agreement with the United States to provide for the flight testing of the Cruise missile in Canada? Why did he not consult this group?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member herself gives the proof of consultation when she asks questions. The group was established by us for the purpose of giving us their opinions. As the hon. member has said, they have been meeting with my officials for the last day and a half. After question period I will be meeting them for lunch in order to discuss with them all the questions that they wish to raise.


ROLE OF CONSULTATIVE GROUP
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the minister is getting very bad advice from his department. Does he not know that all day yesterday the consultative group was asking that its opinions should be sought out and that it should not, like the rest of us, have to read in the newspapers that we are going to flight test a missile or anything else? They want to be consulted before, not after the fact. Would the minister therefore make a commitment now that in future this consultative group will be consulted ahead of action being taken by the government?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this consultation with the consultative group is precisely to take their views in advance of our position at the UNSSOD II meeting in New York in June. That is typical of the way in which we seek the advice of this group. The hon. member would surely not want to suggest that the Government of Canada cede its decision making power to the group. The fact that we do not share her party's view of NATO and do not share her views on various questions concerning the disarmament field surely does not imply we are not aware of them.

[DOT] (U50)


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the sudden and early retirement of Rear Admiral Hughes from the Canadian Armed Forces. Can the minister tell us whether Admiral Hughes was paraded to the minister's office last fall and warned that he was not to speak to the media on any subject because it might be considered by the minister to be criticism of the government?

April 2, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I never said such things to Admiral Hughes when I had a conversation with him with the Chief of Defence Staff. 1 can say nothing more than I said six weeks ago, namely that the Chief of Defence Staff offered a posting to Admiral Hughes. Admiral Hughes refused it, and he decided of his own volition to take an early retirement.


ADVICE TO CABINET
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. On March 6, at a press conference held on the west coast, the minister disclaimed any participation in the early retirement of Admiral Hughes. When it was decided to offer Admiral Hughes an unacceptable posting as a method of retiring him, was the minister consulted or not? Will he tell the House whether he in turn advised the Prime Minister or his other colleagues in the cabinet of what was afoot?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know very well, because he is an ex-minister of defence himself, that postings are the responsibility of the Chief of Defence Staff. However, I am, of course, consulted on some of the postings. It is the responsibility of the CDS to post whomever he wants to wherever he wants. Most people go to the postings assigned. When an officer asks for early retirement, there is nothing else for us to do but accept his request.


COURT MARTIAL APPEAL COURT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of National Defence. It is with respect to a recent order in council which I understand has been passed appointing a new president to the Court Martial Appeal Court. If such a president has been appointed, can the minister tell the House why the individual so appointed who has never been a soldier, who has never seen military service, who is not a lawyer and who has no legal experience has been appointed as president of the Court Martial Appeal Court?


Mr. Paproski:: What are his qualifications?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, when an appointment such as this is made it involves consultations with the justice department. In cooperation with the justice department we do appoint the man we think is most suitable.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What are his credentials?


REASONS FOR APPOINTMENT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Why is it that such an individual who has no military service, who has never been a soldier, and who has no legal experience, nor is he a lawyer, found his way into this highly responsible and professional position?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: First, Madam Speaker, I will have to check to find out the name of the person involved.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday he announced the expulsion from Canada of a certain Mikhail Abramov, an official with the Soviet embassy, for carrying on activities which were illegal under Canadian law, namely, an effort to extract from Canada certain high-technology materials.
According to the Canadian businessman contacted by Mr. Abramov for the purpose of perpetrating his activities, it appears that there was at least one other official of the Soviet embassy involved with Mr. Abramov. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether this is in fact the case? If it is, why have no other officials of the Russian embassy been similarly expelled from Canada?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I have no further comments to make and no further details to add beyond what I said yesterday, except to say that the Government of Canada has acted in what it sees as the national interest.


STAFFING OF SOVIET EMBASSY
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, according to the minister's own press statement, this is the third time in a period of four years that Russians have been involved in activities of this nature. As I recall, in 1978 12 individuals were expelled for espionage activities in Canada. It appears that trapping these people, who are carrying on these activities, has no impact on retarding the Russians in their efforts to breach the laws of Canada. May I suggest to the minister that it might be appropriate now to convey to the Russian government that if the Russians continue to engage in these activities in our country, we will have to take steps to make them realize we are serious, such as cutting the number of staff and Russian officials by one half who may remain in Canada, so at least there will be fewer people in this country breaking the laws of Canada.
April 2, 1982


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the government will take what steps it sees as necessary from time to time. The hon. member must not underestimate the disruptive effect of an action such as the expulsion which is taking place. I might also mention that this does indicate the high technology sanctions, which were tightened as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, really do have considerable bite. The Soviet Union is, therefore, in a position where it is obviously prepared to go to extreme lengths to obtain the kind of technology which is denied, and which we will continue to deny to it as long as that country continues its aggressive acts.


THE MINISTRY
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Member of Parliament for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve in his capacity as Minister of State. Would he tell us which minister or ministers he assists?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Minister of State):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say, in answer to the question put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, that I am available to all my cabinet colleagues for the purpose of assisting them in explaining to Quebecers the scope and meaning of decisions made by the Canadian government and applying to Quebec.


POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve indicate to us what specific powers, duties or functions he performs on behalf of those ministers?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I believe this question should be directed to the Prime Minister. In fact, I am not altogether sure, but I think the House should be careful about this, although I have some hesitation as to what I should or should not allow at this time. 1 feel that it is up to the Prime Minister to be answerable for the responsibilities he gives his ministers.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to direct to the Prime Minister the question as to which specific powers, duties or functions are performed for any ministers by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in terms of the Financial Administration Act the answer would have to be none. But in terms of the role of the minister in assisting other ministers, from time to time 1 do assign to him specific tasks to assist other ministers.


An hon. Member:: What are they?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For instance, assisting the Minister of Justice during the constitutional debate, both in meeting with many groups throughout Canada


An hon. Member:: That is over.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am giving examples, not of the future, but of what happened in the past.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He was not a minister then.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, would you convince your members that you have some importance in this House and that your questions are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, 1970
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since the Prime Minister has mentioned the Financial Administration Act, could he inform the House what specific powers, duties or functions are performed by the Minister of State, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, under Section 23 of the Government Organization Act, 1970?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would refer to my previous answer, he will find that I answered that question in advance.


SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENT FOR MINISTER
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since there are no administrative duties assigned to the Minister of State, to whom we are referring, would the Prime Minister consider assigning the Minister of State to the Minister of Communications who is having great trouble in bringing on a freedom of information law despite the expressed commitment of his government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I suppose the members opposite are welcome to give me suggestions in so far as they are of assistance to other people. Could I suggest to the hon. member that he himself should give more assistance to his own leader because-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.

April 2, 1982
Business of the House


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -his own leader is performing his duties very pitifully in this House.


ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has been brought up to date and knows that the minister to whom he was referring was not a minister when he described the functions he thought that minister then performed, I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell us what duties, powers or functions of an administrative nature the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve performs at this point in time for any minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I answered that, Madam Speaker. None in the sense of the Financial Administration Act.


Erik Nielsen: What about the Government Organization Act?


An hon. Member:: What is he being paid for?


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and ninety-first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, April 1, 1982 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: I would also like to tell the House that through a technical error the order for third reading of Bill C-97 was omitted from Government Orders on today's Order Paper, but it will appear on Monday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing
Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Subject to the consent of the House-I have already obtained the required consent of the hon. members for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)-I shall later ask the House to concur in adopting the report.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITION
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and responsibility to present to this House a petition signed by some 1,600 aviation workers employed by the air transport industry in Canada. They have noted a dramatic increase in the number of loaded firearms and instances of restricted articles being transported in baggage and freight shipped on passenger aircraft in Canada. They have called for the posting of restricted article signs at all check-in counters in Canadian airports.
They have also called for an amendment to the restricted weapons and firearms control regulations to allow the mandatory use of gun tags for all firearms carried on commercial aircraft. They have suggested that stringent penalties be imposed on persons who violate such regulations, and that an independent body be established to monitor enforcement of same.
These workers, Madam Speaker, have documented many potentially disastrous incidents involving loaded firearms, toxic gases, leaking chemicals, acids and explosives which have been discovered in baggage on Canadian commercial aircraft. This is a serious matter indeed and demands the immediate attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) for granting permission to

April 2, 1982
table this report and request its adoption. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, presented earlier today, be concurred in-

-and 1 thank the hon. members for their courtesy in allowing me to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,673, 1,697, 3,181 and 3,889.


Mr. Herbert: Does the President of the Treasury Board intend to respond to each of the seventy-two recommendations in the Finkelman Report on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service and, if so, on what date can the comments be expected?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The report to Parliament of the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service contained 72 conclusions or recommendations made as a result of that committee's consideration of the Finkelman Report. The Finkelman report itself presented approximately 300 recommendations on employer-employee relations in the public service.
These recommendations are under study by the government which will propose in due course, amendments to the existing legislation. Also, please refer to part (b) of question No. 1,697 answered this day.
The President of the Treasury Board does not intend to respond to each of the recommendations individually.


Mr. Herbert: Does the government have the right to lock out public servants and (a) if so, has it exercised the right in the past three years (b) if not, does it intend to seek the right in legislative proposals to be brought before the House?


Norman Kelly: (a) The Public Service Staff Relations Act which governs employer and employee relations in the Public Service of Canada as defined in Schedule 1 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act does not contain a lock-out provision. Thus, the government does not have the right to lock out public servants and has not done so.
(b)	The government is presently reviewing legislation concerning collective bargaining in the federal public service.
Order Paper Questions
That legislative review includes a review of the framework of collective bargaining and the processes for the resolution of disputes. As a result of the review, the government will be proposing, in due course, appropriate amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other legislation which may be affected.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the current government policy on strikes in the public service and Crown corporations, particularly in essential services?
2.	Has the government considered or is it considering changes in the present legislation, limiting the right to strike in essential services and substituting some other method of settling labour problems?


David P. Smith: I am informed by Treasury Board of Canada and Labour Canada as follows:
1.	The Public Service Staff Relations Act, which received all party support when first passed in 1967, allows bargaining agents representing employees of the federal government to choose conciliation/strike as the dispute resolution method. The government respects that right. Section 79(1) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act also provides:
"Notwithstanding Section 78 (concerning the establishment of a conciliation board), no conciliation board shall be established for the investigation and conciliation of a dispute in respect of a bargaining unit until the parties have agreed on, or the board has determined pursuant to this section the employees or classes of employees in the bargaining unit (hereinafter in this act referred to as "designated employees") whose duties consist in whole or in part of duties the performance of which at any particular time or after any specified period of time is or will be necessary in the interest of the safety or security of the public."
Section 101(1) of the same act provides:
"No employee shall participate in a strike-
(c) who is a designated employee"
It is to be noted that the act refers to "duties . . . necessary in the interest of the safety or security of the public and not 'essential services'."
The current government policy on strikes in the public service is to endeavour, in negotiating with its employees, to avoid strikes. However, where agreement cannot be reached through direct negotiation and where the bargaining agent has chosen the conciliation/strike route, then the provisions of Sections 79 and 101 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act with respect to safety or security of the public apply.
Crown corporations are under the Canada Labour Code and thus the provisions of the PSSRA do not apply.
2.	The government is presently reviewing legislation concerning collective bargaining in the federal public service. That legislative review includes a review of the framework of

April 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions
collective bargaining and the processes for the resolution of disputes. As a result of the review, the government will be proposing, in due course, appropriate amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other legislation which may be affected.
Labour Canada
1- With respect to strikes involving Crown corporations, the government fully supports the free collective bargaining process, including the right of employees to withdraw their services or the employer to lock out his employees. Part V of the Canada Labour Code contains provisions which place certain requirements on the bargaining parties before lawful strike or lock-out action may be initiated; these include the filing of a notice of dispute with the Minister of Labour and the exhaustion of all conciliation assistance available to the parties at the discretion of the Minister of Labour. In addition, the code effectively prohibits strikes over rights disputes and on the question of union recognition, and allows for limiting the acquisition of the right to strike or lock out when Parliament is dissolved.
In instances where contract negotiations reach an impasse, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of Labour Canada provides expert conciliation and mediation assistance to the parties in an attempt to resolve their differences and arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement. The vast majority of disputes referred to FMCS are settled without resort to strike or lock-out action.
2. The government is not considering changes in the present legislation with regard to
(a)	the acquisition and exercise of the right to strike; and
(b)	the mediation and conciliation procedures for the resolution of disputes
with respect to the collective bargaining process in Crown corporations.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation state in the House of Commons that employees of Graphic Artists, Studio S & B, 400 St. Antoine St. West, Montreal were sworn to secrecy in connection with their work on the budget advertising and, if so (a) what was the exact date and time they were sworn to secrecy (b) who administered the oaths of secrecy (c) what were the names of all the persons to whom oaths were administered?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: No.
(a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask 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?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, major policies of the government have made economic conditions in Canada worse by forcing lay-offs, preventing job creation, slowing economic growth and driving out investment.
He said: Madam Speaker, as you will see from the text of the motion, its purpose is to focus attention upon major government policies, particularly those of an economic nature, or which impact directly on our economy.
I might say by way of introduction that government policies are the result of the exercise of political power. I would be hard pressed to find a government, indeed a political party, more obsessed with political power than the one opposite me. Unhappily, I believe it has been this obsession which has obscured and distorted the use of power. Without oversimplifying the matter, I suggest to you that political power is nothing more or less than the right and responsibility of a government to provide services to people. As a result of the exercise of political power, and implementation of government policy flowing from it, services should be delivered to Canadians.
They may be, Mr. Speaker, Canadians in a particular region where a government policy enhances the opportunities of the people in that region. They may be Canadians in a particular strata of society who are being assisted; the poor or disabled, for example. They may be Canadians in a certain sector of our society, such as farmers or manufacturers, or they may be social policies which would be of benefit to all Canadians.
The point is that, with very few exceptions, government policies should operate to benefit Canadians. I am not only sepaking of the expenditure by the government of the tax dollars that it has collected, because the government may opt to create, for example, a climate of opportunity, or a climate of challenge, or a climate of optimism, which is often much more effective and beneficial than the expenditure of billions of taxpayers' dollars.
What has prompted this particular motion is that recently major government policies have done exactly the opposite to what they were supposed to do and what they have traditionally and historically done. Instead of creating benefits and
April 2, 1982

beneficiaries, the government has created casualties and victims by the thousands, by the tens of thousands and by the hundreds of thousands. One casualty list alone has over one million names on it. That is the list of jobless casualties. They are in every region, in every sector and in every strata. They may be fishermen in our coastal waters or farmers in our rural areas. They may be miners, they may be factory workers, they may be the young who are trying to enter the job market or they may be the elderly on fixed incomes. They all have one thing in common: they are the victims of government policy. I want to deal with just one group this afternoon. I want to deal with the jobless. There are officially over one million unemployed, plus thousands who are not on the official casualty list, such as the young who are attempting to enter the job market, those without unemployment insurance benefits, and those who once received benefits which have now run out.
If I may focus, may I do so in a local sense. I do not attempt to focus parochially or to suggest for one minute that my riding is the microcosm on the perfect example of all ridings in Canada. However, it is obviously the one I know best. I would like to use the Stratford area as an example because our work force has historically been stable and industrious. Our incomes have been much lower than many communities. We do not claim to be on the top of the average income list. However, we have a good employment record. For example, concerning government make-work grants, we have never received a grant above the minimum in the more than nine years 1 have been here. These grants are presumably based on unemployment records. We have never received more than the minimum, whether it be under the local incentives program, Canada works, the young Canada works, or the new one, the community services program. Every time we change a minister, we change the name. However, we have never received more than the minimum and we have never claimed more.
We have experienced no dramatic increase in population, but we have had a community of home owners with confidence in themselves and in their community. We have had a community of stability, and we have had a community of optimism. We are typical of many hundreds of Canadian communities from one side of this country to the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: What has happened to that one community- and we share the situation with many others-in five months? In the Stratford district we have a work force of 22,000 people. Three thousand five hundred people have been laid off in five months. Three thousand five hundred people have lost their jobs and have become victims along with the other thousands who are dependent upon those victims. There has been a decrease in manufacturing employment of 35 per cent. We have a Canada Employment Centre which has a caseload capacity of 250 people a day, but the present volume is 400 to 500 a day, which is double our capacity to handle. With respect to unemployment insurance services, our active claim load increased by 52 per cent this winter as compared to last winter.
Supply
I repeat, we are not unique in Perth county or in Stratford. Dozens of Members of Parliament represent constituencies in southwestern Ontario and right across the country. Their numbers change, but the scenario remains the same. The reality is that over one million people are out of work. My 3,500 jobless constituents want jobs, they do not want handouts. They are proud, productive and hard-working. They do not want to rip off a government system, and they are not ripping off a government system. They are victims of the government system.
What happens to a community when 15 per cent of its work force is laid off in five months? Indeed, what happens to a country with one million unemployed? There are three major, direct, adverse impacts: the economic impact, the social impact and the psychological impact. We have yardsticks to measure the economic impact, such as business bankruptcies which increased by 22 per cent in 1981 over 1980, and increased by 43 per cent over 1979. During the first two months of this year, there was another 28 per cent increase in bankruptcies. We also have the yardstick of housing starts. Last year the city of Stratford had only three new housing starts. Three, in a city of over 25,000 people! That is a yardstick. There are others, such as retail and wholesale sales and the percentage of productive capacity.
However, unhappily and tragically, the best yardstick is unemployment and the cost of unemployment. One should go to a municipal official and ask him or her what the cost of unemployment is to the welfare department of that municipality. In Ontario, one should go to the ministry of community and social services and ask those provincial officials what the cost of unemployment is to their budgets. If one wants to ask the federal government, one should go to the Unemployment Insurance Commission officials and ask them what the cost of unemployment is to their fund. Over and above every dollar, nickel and penny contributed by the employers and employees to that fund, the Canadian taxpayer will have to pick up a shortfall of $1 billion in that bankrupt fund.


An hon. Member:: That is not right.


William Herbert Jarvis: That is the cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
Let me deal with the social impact. Not long ago, a colleague of mine in this House dealt with the social impact resulting from unemployment. One of the ministers of the Crown said it was nonsense. Well, that minister was either ignorant or insensitive to a very real fact of life; that is, the absolute, direct relationship between unemployment and adverse social manifestations, whether drug or alcohol abuse, family breakdown, suicide, heart attack or crime of all kinds. The Department of Labour has a report to show the direct relationship. As unemployment increases, so does social tragedy increase. It is not necessary that Your Honour believe me. Talk to a law enforcement officer or a probation officer. Talk to a welfare official. Talk to children's aid caseworkers. Talk to family counsellors. Talk to doctors and hospital staffs. If one does this, one will find that the cost is staggering in

Anrii 7. 198?
Supply
terms of dollars, if we want to be so callous as to measure social cost in terms of dollars. Elowever, the real cost has no dollar value. That is the cost in terms of human misery, human despair and human degradation.
The third impact is the psychological impact. It may not be the most important, I do not know. I know that for me, and I think for many of my colleagues, it is the most difficult to understand. Unfortunately, I think it may be the most difficult to cure.
May I give Your Elonour two examples from my riding. One group, which is likely next to my rural constituents in stability, is made up of skilled workers-machinists, tool and dies makers, electricians, carpenters and cabinet makers. These people have put their roots deeply into the community. They have purchased their own homes and are active participants in the community. They are people who purchased their own homes, who are active participants in the community, a stable, hard-working, optimistic work force normally.
What has happened to this group? This group is frightened. There are a lot of them out there now who are mad, and we all have constituents who are mad. Every weekend when we go home we hear about it. Anger boils up quickly and often dissipates quite as quickly. But fear is like a cancer that eats and eats and eats away.
I have the skilled labourers in my riding saying to me, to themselves and to their families: "Now that my house is mostly paid for, now that my children are mostly looked after and I am in the last half of my working career, is there going to be a job; is that company going to be in business for the last half of my working career?" That is what they are saying. Then they say: "Even if the company stays, is it going to move into a high technology field and am 1 going to be capable of being trained, or are services going to be there to retrain me?"
Therefore, you have one of the most stable sectors in your riding saying to itself, out of fear: "Am I going to tear up my roots; am I going to try to sell my house; am 1 going to move into a strange community, because I cannot survive here?" Sir, that is a very difficult thing to manage.
The other group, Mr. Speaker, that I want to talk about in my riding we all have, and I call them, for lack of a better name, the risktakers. It generally consists of the farming community and the small businessmen. I suggest they have been the builders of my riding and the builders of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: They are the men and women that at high personal risk will build and enlarge and improve. It may be the building of a new barn, the enlarging of a factory, buying a combine, a tractor or a delivery truck. They are willing to take a chance because they have always had confidence in themselves and they have had confidence in the country.
What are these risk-takers doing? I will tell you what a lot of those who had capital, those who are in a liquid position, those who were deterred by having to borrow at high interest
rates, did, Mr. Speaker. They bought Canada Savings Bonds at 19.5 per cent interest. That is what the risk-takers did. They did not build a barn, they did not enlarge their business, they did not buy a new truck or car. If they had sufficient liquidity, they bought Canada bonds at 19.5 per cent. That is exactly what happened. What jobs in Perth county can be created by that? None. The traditional demand from risk-takers vanished, and with it vanished jobs. Part of those 3,500 jobs were lost in five months alone.
This is the tragic situation in my riding and I am sure in many others. A stable, productive, confident community has vanished, ravished by high inflation, deterred by high interest rates but, most important, brutalized by lost jobs.
What does the government do and say? It does nothing and it says: "We cannot do anything because we are simply part of an international recession and we cannot divorce ourselves from the economy of the United States". I do not accept that, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept it at all, but I will not debate it right now, I will go on and point out what a government's responsibility is in such a situation.
Let us assume that we can do nothing about those international pressures on the one side, and our economy tied to the United States on the other. What does a responsible government do then? Does it throw up its hands? Does it shrug in despair? Does it wait it out? Does it accept the loss of productivity and the one million people unemployed? A responsible government in this situation, Mr. Speaker, looks within its own country to those sectors that are unique to it, that may operate as a defence against those external pressures.
Have we in Canada anything unique? We have a number of things. We have one thing I would like to talk about, one very important sector. We have the oil and gas sector; that is one. What other industrialized countries have it? Name me one, in the industrialized world, that has the potential that this country has in the production of energy.
Let me discuss three energy fields where government policy has stolen the jobs of my constituents and the jobs of constituents of every member of this House. One, the tar sands megaproject of Alsands and Cold Lake; two, the Alaska natural gas pipeline; three, the conventional oil and gas exploration and drilling industry. The tar sands have $20 billion of direct investment in those two projects, with $40 billion of indirect investment flowing from the construction of those two projects. There is job creation far beyond the province of Alberta, because 25 per cent to 35 per cent of the expenditure of those billions of dollars goes to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in the manufacturing sector, in the engineering sector, and the construction sector.
What has happened? Two years ago, Alsands should have started construction. Not one job has been created. Why? Because Canada and Alberva cannot agree. That means 3,500 people in my riding are laid off because Canada and Alberta cannot agree.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of Alberta should say to their respective ministers of
April 2, 1982

energy: "Gather up your officials, gather up your reports and documents, go into that room and don't you dare come out of that room until you have that problem solved, to get those projects started". The failure to do that is costing my constituents their jobs and no one who is a leader in the federal government or in the government of Alberta has a right to do that. It means 25,000 man-years of direct employment, and
220,000	man-years of indirect employment, but they will not even go into a room to resolve the problem. Canadians were promised those jobs and we want that promised fulfilled. We know that four and one-half years ago in this House the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), then President of the Privy Council, made that promise. We want that promise fulfilled.
Now the natural gas pipeline, Mr. Speaker. Again there was an ironclad guarantee, another promise of jobs, but where is it? While the minister of energy of Alberta and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada (Mr. Lalonde) are in that room, I do not want the Prime Minister jetting around the world, I want him in the oval office in the White House in Washington, resolving the natural gas pipeline problem. Because failure to do so is robbing my constituents of jobs.
Let me talk about the third item. It is one on which the government does not have to agree with anyone else on. It is the conventional oil and gas service industry of Saskatchewan and Alberta and British Columbia. What has happened since the National Energy Program was implemented? Drilling in Canada is down 25 per cent and at the same time drilling goes up by 25 per cent in the United States. We find a 33 per cent decrease in rigs operating; 225 to 270 rigs have left Canada; 40 per cent of our drilling rigs have gone out of the country. This figure does not even include the service rigs. We have exported to the United States over $1 billion in oil and gas rigs. It is exactly the same, Mr. Speaker, as if I picked up a cheque book, wrote out a $1 billion cheque and handed it to the United States and said; "Here, go ahead, create jobs, thanks to Canada." That is exactly what has happened.
What effect has that had on Stratford? Stratford is far removed from the drilling area. The oil and gas industry is the biggest single consumer of trucks of any industry in Canada. It is not construction, it is not mining, it is not lumber, it is the oil and gas industry. What does Stratford make for trucks? It makes the brake cable, radiators, the interior trim, the filters, the fans, the bearings. Let me give you an example, Sir. I have a letter from the president of Cooper Energy Services Ltd. of Stratford. I will read part of it:
Since late 1980, coincident with the National Energy Program, the demand in Alberta for reciprocating compressors in gas production and gas gathering applications has declined dramatically parallel to the departure of drilling rigs from Canada.
He goes on to say:
Since the end of 1981, approximately 94 skilled tradesmen have been given lay-off notices.
In the energy industry, that Stratford plant should be bursting at the seams. It should be on three shifts a day. It should be hiring and training skilled labourers. However, 94 skilled tradesmen have been laid off since January 1. It is
Supply
absolutely unbelievable that that should be going on in this country.
A headline in today's Globe and Mail states "55 laid off by oil service rig firm in Cambridge". This matter was raised yesterday in the House of Commons. That plant in Cambridge, a neighbouring riding, should be on three shifts a day, bursting at the seams and planning to expand. Every time a drill rig leaves this country, it costs Canadians jobs. In 1981 we paid $3!6 billion of taxpayers' money to subsidize imports of foreign oil. Not one job was created with the expenditure of that money.
We import oil. What do we export? We export drill rigs, service rigs and thousands and thousands of Canadian jobs. The government's National Energy Program, and I will be as kind as I can, is a national disgrace and a national disaster. It is robbing my constituents of their right to work.


Mr. Gimaiel:: Tell Mr. Lougheed.


William Herbert Jarvis: I hear a Liberal heckler saying I should tell Mr. Lougheed. I will tell him to send his minister of energy into that negotiation room if he can convince the disaster that is the minister of energy for Canada to go in the same room with him. I would tell Mr. Lougheed to tell that minister to stay in the room until they have both worked out a deal. This government does not have the guts to do that and the Liberal backbenchers do not have the guts to put pressure on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is content to let people stay out of work. 1 am not content to let my people stay out of work because they want jobs.
I wish I had more time to spend on this. However, may 1 give one more example of a government gone crazy, the budget. One little item in that budget was capital cost allowance. I read in the paper that because of the implementation of the capital cost allowance provision, which reduces the ability of a taxpayer to write off part of the cost of depreciation on a car, 40,000 new vehicles will not be sold to the car rental industry. That is just one industry. It does not include the commission salesmen and all the other Canadians who use cars, just the car rental industry.
What right does the government have to do that at a time when the car industry and auto parts industry is at the lowest point since the depression? What could prompt a government, except insanity, to invoke a provision that would rob auto parts workers in my riding and across this country? It is the sheerest of folly. If the capital cost allowance provisions need review, fine; I do not mind reviewing them. I do not mind hearing the evidence to support that change. However, of all times in history, why on earth would the government deter the sale of cars and arrest the production of auto parts? It makes absolutely no sense.
This is a country beset with international problems; I acknowledge that. We have direct links with the United States economy; I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that certain

April 2, 1982
Supply
Canadians are victims of those external pressures. However, in that situation these Canadians do not have to be the victims of a government policy that operates to cost them their jobs rather than provide employment opportunities.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) for providing the House with this opportunity once again to address what has to be one of the most critical problems facing our country today, the economic difficulties in which we find ourselves.
More important, I want to thank him for providing us with this opposition day so that once again we on this side of the House can do whatever is possible to convince members opposite that indeed there is a very serious economic problem in our country. I still hear daily from various ministers as they respond to questioning the opinion that the problem is not that serious, that with any luck it will begin to turn around at the end of this quarter and, by the summer of 1982, we will see a recovery under way.
I do not think a single member on this side feels that way. Nor do I think does anyone opposite. That is why 1 appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Perth has again provided us with an opportunity to bring some facts to light and to raise some points of view that hopefully will get through to members across the aisle.
I also thank the hon. member for Perth for introducing a new concept as we struggle as a country to increase our exports. He identified a new export, the export of jobs. I know the government will find some convoluted way of using this to indicate that there is a major thrust forward and that our exports have increased. However, when we ask what they are, we will be told they are jobs, service rigs and so on. That is where my more complimentary comments will end.
As we begin to examine this economic challenge which faces our country, I do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to go into a litany of the problems. All of us on this side of the House are aware where the difficulties lie and what the problems are. It is appropriate that we emphasize the cost of these problems.
One need only look at what UIC payments cost Canadian taxpayers every year. It is fair to say, and I will watch my words very carefully, that we on this side are getting sick and tired of setting aside something in the neighbourhood of almost $5 billion a year for UIC payments. That is not to that say we do not want to provide UIC payments for those in need, of course we do. However, $5 billion of taxpayers' money going out needlessly to those folks who have lost their jobs is something we have to turn around. Last month this country paid out in excess of $600 million in UIC payments alone, not including the burden placed on every province in this country of having to make welfare payments to those folks most desperately in need.
Let us look at the statistics. I understand the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) will be speaking later today. He will state that there are 1.1 million people
who are out of work. That is not true. If one looks at the real figures of unemployment in this country, it is closer to 1.8 million. That is in excess of 15 per cent of the work force right across Canada presently out of work.
It is interesting to look at the constituency of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). Statistics Canada reported that
9,000	people were unemployed in Cape Breton last month. However, what is interesting to note is that 18,000 people in Cape Breton were collecting UIC. This would mean an unemployment rate of over 30 per cent in Cape Breton as opposed to the figure of 16.8 per cent reported by Statistics Canada. In Cape Breton, the home of the Minister of Finance, the unemployment rate is 30 per cent.


An hon. Member:: The same as Quebec.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The official number of unemployed in January of this year was 346,000. Even that number, which includes many people who are out of work and should be meaningfully employed, is not the right number. The number of those collecting UIC was not 346,000 but 417,000. If you take into consideration those people who recently applied before the statistics became valid, the unemployment rate was 589,000, or more than half a million people were applyng for UIC in the province of Quebec.
I remind hon. members that at the outbreak of the great depression in the early 1930s, the unemployment rate was just over 20 per cent. In parts of Canada today the unemployment rate runs from 30 per cent to 35 per cent, and in western Canada, one of the most prosperous regions of our country, the unemployment rate is nearly 25 per cent. In other words, those unemployment rates reflect those rates which existed at the beginning of the great depression.
What is the cost of unemployment? In monetary terms it represents $4.8 billion for unemployment insurance plus the cost of welfare to the provinces. Of course, another cost is all the revenue which is not collected since people who are not working and plants which are not operating do not generate tax revenue to the government. It is difficult to calculate what this lost revenue might be, but I suggest that it represents billions of dollars in taxes which are not flowing into the federal coffers as a result of these difficult economic times when nearly two million people are not working.
While it may be easy to calculate the economic costs of unemployment, I suspect that these are not the real costs involved. The real, most difficult and most important costs which tear at the fabric of society are the social costs. The hon. member for Perth identified a number of these costs. Examples of this are child abuse, wife battering, drug addiction, alcohol abuse and an increase in juvenile delinquency. Children are having difficulty at school. Crime rates increase, which necessitates larger police forces. These are some of the social costs which will not turn around at the end of 1982 or turn around when recovery begins. These are costs which may be
April 2, 1982

with us for years, decades and perhaps even one or two generations into the future. The social fabric of our society to which we have become accustomed is literally being torn apart. Those social costs will haunt us for many years.
We have heard from many members on this side of the House who I believe travel more often throughout the country to talk to the average Canadian than members opposite. There is an evident lack of confidence for the future of Canada expressed by consumers and investors. Until recently, with the exception of the height of the depression, Canadians have had a work ethic which was best described by Frederick Jackson Turner as the frontier ethic. The meaning of that ethic was that when you venture out and apply yourself, you know that your future will be better and your children will be better off than you. By applying that effort, people knew in their hearts that their children would progress and have greater opportunities in the future.
This Canadian ethic has altered somewhat in the last number of months. No longer do people feel that their sons and daughters will have greater opportunities and better lifestyles than their own. Our confidence and hope for the future has been dashed by this government. One result of this lost hope is that young people in school begin questioning the purpose of continuing their education. They ask, "Why should we struggle and study to graduate when the unemployment level in the country is nearly two million and going up every day? What is the point of continuing in school?" Of course, when people lose hope for the future, there is no future. This government, which has the responsibility of leading the country, has caused this situation as a result of its policies.
Two areas where the real problems exist can be identified as fiscal policy and monetary policy. The fiscal policy of the government is demonstrated by the November 12 budget of the Minister of Finance. This budget, which was introduced the day after Remembrance Day, will go down in history as the turning point in our economy when the government failed to provide the necessary economic and political leadership which was required at the time. The fiscal policy which was demonstrated in the budget was anti-development, anti-growth and anti-improvement. All the minister wanted to do was to cut, cut, cut. These cuts were similar to the mindless sort of suggestions we have often heard from members to our right. They have suggested that reduced government investment is the route to follow. We do not necessarily adhere to that mindless policy during these difficult times. 1 have yet to hear of a businessman who has become successful through cutting back in investment.


Mr. McDermid:: In tough times they tighten their belts.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If you do not invest money you do not make money.


John Horton McDermid: Have you ever been in business?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have been in many businesses and every one has operated on the theory of making money through investing money. That is why I say the mindless-and I use the term
Supply
positively-cut-back mentality of the Conservative ethic is not what we need today.


John Horton McDermid: More government waste.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As a demonstration of this government's fiscal policy, the budget is hammering this country to death. The real problem does not lie with the fiscal policy as much as it does with the monetary policy. The present monetary policy, which advocates high interest rates as a solution to combat inflation, is having the most devastating impact that this country has ever experienced. The government decided in 1975 to begin a monetary policy to fight inflation by increasing interest rates in order to cut back the money supply. The feeling at that time was that it was the only alternative to use in the fight against inflation. I suspect that until recently that was the feeling of most of the members in the House, that we should cut back spending to Fight inflation because inflation is caused by spending more than you are producing. Therefore, the obvious theory was to reduce spending in order to combat inflation.
The government introduced that monetary policy in 1975 and seven years later interest rates remain at a skyhigh level. Has inflation been reduced? Is it lower than it was in 1975? Not only is it not lower, it is higher and still rising-11.6 per cent last month over the same month in the previous year. How many years do we have to have a policy before the government admits it has failed? I suspect that seven years is enough.
If we were to ask the people of Canada, as opposed to Governor Bouey, what the government should be doing- which we should do if we believe in a democracy-I believe it would be difficult to find a handful of people who would agree that a high interest rate policy is the answer and will provide us with a dynamic economy. One would have to be quite a dreamer to believe that. You would have to believe in unicorns, Mr. Speaker.
There is no doubt that this policy has failed. I beg the government and the minister who is presently in the House to admit that the government has misjudged-not necessarily erred or made a drastic mistake but misjudged-its policy and has launched on a theory under the directorship of Governor Bouey which has not wrestled inflation to the ground.
This leaves the question of what alternative there is to fight inflation if we do not do it with this monetary policy. 1 believe that is a fair question, one which has not been given great attention by the press or elaborated on to any great extent by Members of Parliament. However, if inflation is caused by spending more than you are producing, presumably another alternative would be to increase productivity in Canada. If there is any country in the world today which has the built-in potential to increase productivity, it must be ours. It has to be Canada. We could not identify another country which has the built-in capacity for improved and increased productivity that Canada has.

April 2, 1982
Supply
Yet what is our fiscal policy doing? It is throttling the very life out of our economy. There is no development and no productivity. That is what the fiscal policy of this government is, and that is what the monetary policy of this government is. I say it is time for a change. After seven years of failure we have to do something else.
This is no better reflected than in the attitude of the government toward the small business community. I must say that I appreciated the comments of the hon. member for Perth who said that confidence is something we have to turn around. The small business sector is the only real Canadian-owned sector of our economy. It is virtually 100 per cent Canadian-owned, which is something about which all of us in this House should feel proud. We should want to see it continue. That is where research and development occur. The small business sector is where the creativity in our economy is. That is where jobs are being created. Statistics tell us that the overwhelming majority of jobs created in Canada over the last seven years has been in the small business sector. That is where there is creativity and growth, despite government policies. That is where initiative originates. That is where flexibility exists, and I emphasize the term "flexibility" because if there is a problem we face in coming to grips with some of our economic problems, that problem is bureaucracy. I do not mean government bureaucracy only. That is what we usually talk about, but I mean the slow-moving bureaucracy which exists in big business, and big labour as well. This bureaucracy makes it very difficult for business to react quickly to the changes and challenges which face us.


John Horton McDermid: Big unions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: 1 said big business, big government and big labour. How much clearer can I make it for the hon. member?


John Horton McDermid: You did not say labour.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I did say labour. This is a problem we face today, but the small business sector does not face that difficulty. The small business sector has the ability to move quickly to take advantage of new trends in the economy. That is the sector we must support and encourage. That is where research and development is taking place, certainly not in the government. Government expenditures on research and development in Canada are on a par with those of that progressive, technological, industrial nation of Egypt. I do not mean to put down the country of Egypt. It has its own difficulties, but leading the world in research and development is not its forte. It should be ours. When we measure our research and development expenditures at the level of developing, struggling countries such as Egypt and Turkey, I must say we have real problems.
What is the attitude toward small business? Today in committee the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) said he agreed that in spite of some of the attempts-with the emphasis on "attempts"-by the government to assist small business, the present high interest rates nullify all its efforts. When a small business person has to
borrow money at 20 per cent and more, it does not matter if there is some little government policy or some system to aid him in some way; that 20 per cent-plus interest rate will kill him.
What we are seeing is the slow erosion, which is becoming faster all the time, of the small business sector in this country. What replaces that small business sector? Needs and demands still exist, but mergers start replacing that sector, and again international chains, multinationals and so forth begin to take over that sector of the economy. Very slowly we are exacerbating the problems which, presumably, high interest rates are attempting to improve. High interest rates are making the matter even worse.
As the hon. member asked earlier, why do we have a high interest rate policy? It is because of our connection or our relationship with the United States. Does our high interest rate policy remove us from that dependency? It increases that dependency, and the solution has now become part of the problem in more ways than one.
How does the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism respond to the crisis faced by the small business community? In his response to provide assistance to those businesses wanting to expand their operations, provide more jobs and carry out more research and development? Absolutely not. That is not what the government supports or encourages. To do that we would need a bond called a small business "development" bond. Such a bond would assist small businesses and encourage them to expand. It would encourage the expansion of farms. But we changed that in the budget of November 12. We changed it, and it is now called the "small business bond". It is meant only to bail out those who are literally and beyond any doubt going bankrupt. It is a welfare system when we need intensive care. The small business sector of this country needs intensive care, but we have no real medical service and no preventive medicine to assist that sector. That is the kind of leadership we should be providing the small business sector, but we are not doing that.
Nearly two years ago the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism told us that the financing of small business was the problem and that we had to study it, analyse it and identify what the problems were. That was two years ago and today the situation is still being studied. We still have not seen any report. Why does it take two years to identify the problems small businesses face in relation to financing? Surely to goodness if this is a priority we could find that out in at least six months. Two years later we are still waiting. Let us pray that it does not simply become another report which identifies a whole host of small business financing problems, makes a whole set of recommendations and then is tabled and the government says it has done its bit.
What can be done? What are some of the options available to us? In my short time remaining-


Thomas Edward Siddon: Two minutes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -I think we have to admit that anything short of almost putting the government and the country on an econom-
April 2, 1982

ic wartime footing would not be enough. Major steps are needed today. Major action is required today. We do not need the little programs here and the little programs there to which we have been referring. We need a program which would identify, along the lines of what the hon. member for Perth said, those areas of the economy where we have a strategic advantage over most countries in the world, and develop those growth areas where we can expand our economy. We should not continue to shore up those old areas which have never been productive, are not productive today and certainly will not be productive in the future. We should identify the strengths this country has and build on them. In other words, we should develop an overall, comprehensive industrial strategy, and the critical component is reduced interest rates.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What specific projects?


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is in this area that we differ with our colleagues to the right. I am not sure whether they advocate lowering interest rates, maintaining interest rates as they are or increasing them, because I hear hon. members talking about all three options.


Mr. Parker:: They support the banks.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not know what on earth they are recommending. It depends which speaker is making a speech and to whom he is making it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What would you do about interest rates, Nelson?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Interest rates have to be lowered as part of an over-all industrial strategy. If they are not lowered, we cannot expect a rejuvenation of our economy or a recovery to occur. Without a reduction of interest rates, economic recovery is impossible. I ask hon. members to ask themselves a question. Why is it that interest rates in Japan can be 7 per cent or 8 per cent?


Thomas Edward Siddon: You tell us.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why does any Japanese investor invest anything in Japan when he could bring his money to Canada and obtain a 20 per cent return? How can interest rates in Japan be 7 per cent? The reason is that the Japanese have a comprehensive industrial strategy in place. The Japanese have a government which is able to develop co-operation between labour, management, financial institutions and the government. That is something we do not have in this country, and at this moment we certainly have a long way to go toward developing that cooperation.
A comprehensive industrial strategy, including the reduction of interest rates, is the way to begin to turn the present recessionary trend around and the way to begin to develop confidence in our future.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That was all very specific.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lachance):: The hon. member's time has now expired. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.00 p.m.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to this wild applause-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: But in a more serious vein, today we are being treated to the likes of an opposition resolution which is designed to condemn the government for all sins of omission and commission and what other miscellaneous things they can find. I want to say though that the traditional routine to which we are usually subjected on Fridays has been somewhat enlivened by the highly theatrical performance of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis). It befits the member who represents that centre of Canadian theatre, Stratford. It is appropriate the opposition sees fit to appoint someone who is so talented in the ways of the theatrical arts. It is the only way in which they can make their case convincing because there is actually no substance to what they have to say. They have to hide everything by using all kinds of wiles and guiles, of which only the member from Perth is capable.
When the hon. member talks about the problems of unemployment and when one considers his performance, I think a second career is called for on the stage at Stratford, not here. However, this brings to mind a quote from Macbeth, of which I am sure the hon. member for Perth will be aware. It reads:
Away and mock the time with fairest show. False face must hide what the false heart doth know.
I would say that is exactly what we have before us. Judging by the subterfuge that is being presented by members opposite, it appears they are trying to present a case they know is not there. It is unfortunate that we are being treated to this theatrical performance as opposed to a serious debate. We all know how serious the situation is. We all know this country, along with many others, is facing a recessionary period. There is a serious downturn in employment. There is still an unacceptable rate of inflation. There are still a number of turbulences in the economy which must be straightened out and dealt with. 1 do not think it is to anyone's benefit to keep hearing what the hon. member for Perth and the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) keep saying, namely that it is the government's fault. It is a question for which we as a government take some responsibility. Certainly there are many

April 2, 1982
Supply
others in this country who must share more of the responsibility for what has happened. But they must also share the responsibility for solutions.
We on this side of the House say constantly that we are ready, willing, and prepared to co-operate and join in partnership with the business community, with trade unions, with the opposition and with financiers in order that together we can come to grips with things during these difficult times. That cannot happen, Mr. Speaker, if the whole point and objective of the opposition is to create division and fractiousness; to create false alarms which constantly frighten people into stampedes in the hope that they will gain some momentary or temporary political advantage, as opposed to offering some reasonable and rational solutions to the problems.
This is unfortunate because the times call for more serious leadership than this. We are always being presented with blanket condemnations. When members get to the end of their speeches they say they will talk about the solutions. Before that happens, though, we have 28 and a half minutes of vitriol and fulminations about the perfidy of the Liberal government, and in the last minute or so we hear "I think we have a solution, but I am sorry, I cannot give it to you because I have run out of time". That is a classic example of what we hear in this House day in and day out. We hear "Boy, do we have problems, and if you would only give us the chance, we would give you the answers, except that we have just run out of time".
I have been through several opposition days in the last two or three months as befits my own position as Minister of Employment and Immigration. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am waiting to hear members of the opposition say something that makes sense. When members of the opposition can solve their own internal contradictions and resolve their own basic inherent conflicts in their caucuses, perhaps then we will have a clear and consistent position from the opposition as to what they think should be done.
On the one hand, we have the financial critic for the Conservative party who gave a speech in Toronto who said the only answer for Canada is Reaganomics. He said: In other words, "Let us do what President Reagan is doing and slash, cut and tie everything down. Let us go back to the Reagan formula, cut back social services, social welfare, training, employment-cut back everything". That is his answer.


Mr. Bosley:: Absolutely the opposite.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now we hear the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) saying "Absolutely the opposite"-let us spend more money, let us do more. Let us stimulate. Let us have incentives. Let us have cash incentives. Let us do all of these other things. Well, who are we to believe? Who speaks for the Conservative party here?
Let me give another example. We have the hon. member for Perth decrying with the most eloquent crocodile tears the failures of the megaprojects. He says, "My riding is suffering because the Liberal government could not get an agreement with the Alberta government." He does not mention Shell,
Gulf, or any other companies who are the ones who are actually pulling out of these projects, even though we are offering substantial subsidies and incentives. The hon. member says that it is their responsibility, and he asks: "What can we do about it? Let us get something going that will create work in my riding and in other ridings."
It was only a week ago today that I was in this very House debating an opposition resolution on transportation. I listened to the outrage and the outcrying of members of the Conservative and New Democratic parties, who kept saying, "Do not modernize the transportation system. Do not go ahead and spend $17 billion, even though by doing that it would create work in southwestern Ontario and right across the country." Modernizing the railway system would create $17 billion of investment and provide tens of thousands of jobs for Canadians.
That was the position they took last Friday. This Friday the hon. member for Perth says: "Go ahead and do it. Let us get the megaprojects on the road." Last Friday they told us not to go ahead and do that. I do not know what has happened in the last week. Maybe they had a caucus meeting and decided that today was turnaround time. But it simply comes down to the unalterable fact that we cannot find out what the Conservative Party wants to do.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Neither can they.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) just took away my punch line. The reason we do not know what the Conservatives want is that they do not know what they want either. It is endemic of that party. What they are doing is trying to tiptoe through these difficult times hoping that no one will find out that they have an internal mass of contradictions that are wrapped up in an enigma, led by a person who is less than an enigma.
We are trying to debate the serious topic of economic growth and development. We are looking for an opposition day to at least provide us with the kinds of answers that we think would enhance our sense of direction. They say they know what to do, yet all we see is this constant inability to have at least a consistent line of argument. So, Mr. Speaker, if at times we have a certain degree of skepticism about their sincerity and willingness to come to grips with the problem, I think it is justified. Every time we look at what they have to say, all we see are contradictions or gross exaggerations. The hon. member for Perth is guilty of the parliamentary sin of trying to create a sense of hysteria by using false figures. He says there is going to be a billion dollar deficit in the UIC fund which we will have to bail out. Where did he get those figures from? In fact, last year we had a $350 million surplus in the fund. We then reduced the premiums by 15 cents per $100 of salary. It is our estimate that even if unemployment averaged 9 per cent for the entire year-which it will not-the total additional cost would be $400 million to $500 million, which
April 2, 1982

means any extra premium cost would only be what we reduced the premiums by this year.
Now, that is an estimate, a judgment. We do not begin to forecast what the fund will be until the third quarter, but the hon. member for Perth has his own little abacus back there where he adds things up and gets this magical $1 billion deficit figure. Well, that is irresponsible, and I charge the hon. member with being irresponsible for using those kinds of figures. He has no business doing it, and he knows better because he is generally a responsible member of this House. However, 1 think he is getting carried away in a sort of caucus euphoria where they say we have tough times, let us see if we can burrow and dig and make things a little worse by using this kind of false figure. That is not the way to deal with serious conditions in a serious time. What we should be dealing with is realistic members, looking at the real problems and trying to come up with real answers.
At the same time we are also dealing with a situation where the Conservative party keeps fuelling the fire of its sins by insisting that somehow it has an answer for high interest rates even though as a government it was in favour of them. The Conservatives recognized-and I give them credit for it-that this is not a problem isolated to Canada; it is one which every industrialized country of the world is facing. So looking at this resolution which says the government is responsible for lay-offs and so on, if they use some sense of logic-and 1 hate to try and convince the opposition to use logic because I know it is a practice foreign to them-they would have to follow through and say that the American, British and German governments, indeed all governments, are dead wrong in their policies. Whether they be Social Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Socialists or Liberals, they are all wrong. Which means the only people who are right must be the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You have got it.


Lloyd Axworthy: They are the only ones who have the answer-except we have not yet heard it, Mr. Speaker. So they are going to keep us wondering for another opposition day, and another one beyond that.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that if we want to come to grips with these issues, as do members on this side, let us at least be honest about it and deal with facts and reality, not the fiction and fantasy which appears every time we look at one of their resolutions. Let us deal with what is happening in Canada and with what kinds of solutions might be available.
The NDP finance critic says we do not have any policy, there is nothing there. Well, let us examine that because I think there are some interesting contradictions among our friends in the NDP as well. I wonder what their strategy is. One day I hear from the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) that we are not doing enough to bring people into the country;
Supply
let us bring in more refugees and help these different groups of people overseas.


Walter David Baker: Jim Coutts will take care of him.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are certainly hopeful of that.


Walter David Baker: You will be hoping for a long time.


Lloyd Axworthy: The concern over immigrants is legitimate and one we respond to. But then last week the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) said that this government is engaged in dastardly deeds; it is bringing in skilled workers. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They cannot say one day, "bring more people in", and the next day, "stop bringing in anyone at all". I guess one day they talked to one group of people, and the next day the CLC slapped their wrists and said, "Hey, we are not in favour of more skilled workers".


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the hon. member in full flight, but I wonder if he would permit a question. Does he make a distinction-


Lloyd Axworthy: I will be very pleased to respond to a question if time remains at the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where the NDP finance critic said: "Our strategy is to go for the growth industries; let us go for the winners in society, the guys who are on the way up." All right, I will buy that, but is it not exceedingly strange that the NDP, the great spokesmen for the working man, are prepared to forget the hundreds of thousands of workers in other industries who must also be protected? Is it not odd that this party, which carries the banner of labour and in fact does their bidding, is prepared to forget about the textile, footwear and garment industries, which are in some decline? They are not prepared to offer any assistance to them whatsoever.
Well, we are not as heartless as they are because we have an industrial strategy which is aiming to provide grants to help those industries develop new equipment and technology. At the same time we have introduced a number of programs to help workers affected by changeovers to adjust. There is a $350 million program for industrial labour adjustment which is now in operation in many communities represented by NDP members to help workers be retrained for new jobs.
The New Democratic Party members forget about things like that, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to talk about the worker whose only real security is in his or her skill. Oh, no, this is a party totally indifferent to skill training in Canada. 1 do not hear them congratulating this government when we increase the budget for skill training by 18 per cent this year alone, so that we will be spending over $1 billion this year and adding thousands of opportunities for workers to be retrained. What do we get from the NDP for that? They say, "Oh, that is not good enough; it is a gimmick, a trick, do not listen to them." What do we get from the president of the CLC? "Do not listen to them; that is not important. We do not care that

April 2, 1982
Supply
the government is spending $1 billion to help retrain workers in Canada. We do not care about retraining or adjustment."
The NDP finance critic said to just go for the big winners, the growth industries. Well, we are not prepared to buy that. We will help those people, and we are doing it now because we just put $436 million into the aero space industry, which is a new technology industry. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has established six micro-electronic centres right across Canada-[DOT]


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: -to provide for the development of a new technology industry. But at the same time this same government is also employing a program to help the textile and footwear industries. We are providing major assistance in places like Cambridge and Brant.
[DOT] (M30)
I would ask the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap to speak to his colleague, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), who has written letters of congratulation to me and other ministers thanking us for the ILAP program, which is helping thousands of workers in his riding to find adjustment in new jobs.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Lloyd Axworthy: Those are the kinds of strategies we are putting in place.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about interest rates?


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us speak about another major area of assistance that we do not hear the NDP speaking about. In fact, we hear them pouring scorn on the work-sharing program. As of today, we have signed over 530 agreements with trade unions and employers for work-sharing across Canada. That means that we are covering close to 30,000 workers and have avoided 13,000 lay-offs in this country within the two months that the program has been in operation. What do we hear from the New Democratic Party and the CLC? We hear, "Gimmickry, trickery! It doesn't mean a thing." I ask the NDP to go back to those areas and speak to those workers who are signing an average of 20 or 30 agreements a week, and ask them if they think it is a gimmick that we are saving their jobs and keeping them employed. Is that so much of a gimmick? Is that part of the NDP's callousness toward the workers, showing that it does not care that we are saving jobs?
What we are pointing out is that this kind of emotion which is constantly erupting on opposition days is not really based upon the reality of what we are trying to do in this country. This is evident, because we do admit we have difficult times and we have hard times; but we are also saying that we are trying to work our way out of it. At the same time we are trying to provide protection and security for working people.


Dave Nickerson: You got us into it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let me consider another statement by the finance critic for the NDP which I think will be of enormous amusement to everyone in this House. He said, "I will give you the motto if you wish it followed. Let us do what the Japanese do." The Japanese have been pretty successful. Has the hon. member really considered the way the Japanese society is organized? Does he know that it is a fully corporate society where the large corporations make the decisions behind closed doors with government? This is the party whose leader stands up, day after day, and yells and screams and goes into a tantrum about the multicorporate state and the dominance of the American corporations; but now his finance critic is saying, "Why do we not do what the Japanese do and get that secretive corporate state together?"


Walter David Baker: American is bad. Japanese is good.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. Somehow, the Japanese corporate society is okay, but if an American corporation tries to do something here, it is no good.
Again, we come back to the point that we would like to be able to listen with some respect to the propositions put forward by the members of the opposition. But surely, when we are faced with those kinds of statements, when one day they say zig and the next day they say zag, when one day they are up and the next day they are down, when one day they are left and the next day they are right, we do not know who speaks for whom. It is truly the party of total individualism because each of its members says something different.
We must find a more realistic approach. As we have said in this House many times, we have provided a budget and an economic program that we believe will make a difference in this country.


Walter David Baker: Yes, it sure will.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It will make a big difference. It has already made a difference. It killed us!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. It is making a difference because the inflation rate has come down in the last two months.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is 11.6 per cent.


Lloyd Axworthy: The inflationary pressures are being reduced. We realize there is still a problem on the horizon. We still realize that a number of highly inflated wage settlements are being considered, and some of the major sons in the CLC are saying, "No truck or trade with anyone, boy, we are going for broke!" There is no co-operation, no partnership and no attempt to compromise. They are saying, "We are going straight down the line for what we want. We do not care about anyone else. We do not care about the country. We do not care about industry. It can go broke, for all we care. We are just going for the big bundle." That is what we are beginning to hear from the political masters of the NDP and from the CLC
April 2, 1982

executive. We must face that problem and find some resolution.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap said something which I thought was kind of intriguing. Maybe he gave us some kind of a clue as to what the NDP is really after. He said that what we have to do is go to a wartime footing. Whenever there is wartime there are wage and price controls. Are we hearing the first indication that the NDP is saying, "Aha, the real answer is wage and price controls"?


Walter David Baker: Emergency powers.


Lloyd Axworthy: Maybe emergency powers. May it was the members of the NDP who were really the authors of the internment camp philosophy. Maybe they were really the ones who influenced our bureaucrats who prepared those papers stating that we should have internment camps. Maybe that was the basic source of all that difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is that I find that to be exceedingly strange.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Sure you would.


Lloyd Axworthy: I agree we are in difficult times, but this government is not prepared to go to wage and price controls at this time. We would prefer to have voluntary restraint. We would prefer that business, labour and government each showed a sign of restraint.


Walter David Baker: Get them together.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have taken our first step by putting forward a budget which shows that restraint. Through that restraint we will bring inflation rates down and, by bringing inflation rates down, we will bring high interest rates down.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are they bringing them down?


Lloyd Axworthy: There is no artificial mucking around. Rather, we are doing it on the basis that that is the system from which there will be a natural market decision to bring the rates down, not an artificial decision which would produce all kinds of convulsions in international trade and in the flow of finances out of this country, and which would cause a higher rate of inflation because we would have to import products at higher cost from abroad.


Mr. Fennell:: That is what has happened.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the kind of position we are taking. However, in addition, we have also put forward a major economic development paper which is now acting as the basis for discussions with a wide variety of participants from the private sector. It has put forward the basic element that we must stimulate research and development. I fully agree with the finance critic of the NDP. R and D is indeed important. That is one reason we have increased the budget of the National Science Engineering Council by 21 per cent this year. We have increased the budget of the Medical Research Council by
Supply
23 per cent. We put $436 million into the aerospace program and an additional $100 million toward the Telidon program. Therefore, there is agreement that that is a major area of investment.
It is the reason that our envelope of economic development commits $60 billion of government investment to provide incentives and subsidies in support of private industry in this country. It will help the Mitel Corporation of New Brunswick to supply 1,000 jobs to the workers in that depressed area. It will provide for major intervention in western Canada where we are setting up, in the province of Saskatchewan, the province of many of the hon. member's colleagues, the new hydrology institute which will do major research into water and ice conditions to provide for major expansion of agricultural production in that area. We are to provide for a major $150 million expenditure in the core area program of my own city to provide for redevelopment there.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Sure.


Lloyd Axworthy: It will provide for the development of 3,000 or 4,000 jobs, and $60 million will be provided for the application of a new computer facility for Air Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is called "ad hoc".


Lloyd Axworthy: It is those kinds of interventions and investments that we are prepared to make.


Walter David Baker: We need a change in the tax system.


Lloyd Axworthy: But at the same time, we believe that we must go beyond that. We must have a basic framework of restraint. We must see that those investments are strategically placed in those areas where they will have the maximum impact. However, we also need major co-operation from the other economic actors; we cannot do it alone. The government does not run the entire economy, it is run by all departments. Thousands of decisions are being made every day by businessmen, by trade unions and by provincial governments, which spend far more of the national purse than we do. If one adds up the provincial budgets, they have a much higher public expenditure than the federal government.


Walter David Baker: That is why you need cooperative federalism. You should never say it is dead.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. That is why we we need better federalism and have tried to come to better arrangements in those areas. Therefore, we see there is a need for economic strategy.
I refer hon. members to the paper which was tabled at the time of the budget. It sets out the basic element of that strategy. That is what we should be debating today. Hon. members of the opposition would be well advised to concentrate their attention on it and say, "Let us improve it, let us modify it, let us change it", instead of condemning and contradicting in the

April 2, 1982
Supply
manner we have heard in the debate thus far. Our basic thrust in these difficult times is to develop some kind of confidence and to use the tax system.
One of the things we have to deal with is the position taken by our Conservative friends right from the beginning, where they want free markets, laissez-faire and free enterprise. They go and speak to the chambers of commerce and to businessmen and they say: "You make the decisions; you get the government out of the market place". Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) did exactly that by reducing the over-all rate of taxation to Canadians and by plugging up some of those specialized loopholes, instead of saying, "You make the decisions as to where you want things done." There were some particularized, specialized investment loopholes.


Walter David Baker: You have not read the budget.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us reduce it down to the minimum. Let us say we will do it in that way, and then ask: "Where do you want to invest it?" That is the party of free enterprise, laissez-faire and free markets. Let us come back to the idea of providing more specialized incentives, more specialized subsidies.
They have been reducing the real rate from 60 per cent to 50 per cent. That is the normal rate of reduction. It could be a lot more, to provide expenditures and provide for businessmen to make these investment choices. They are doing it of their own making and in their own time, not being dictated to by government. We are doing what the opposition is asking us to do and what do we get for it? We do not get applause and we do not get any appreciation or any feeling of satisfaction. What we get is their acting as if they were on a stage, as if they were back in Stratford on opening night. I am afraid we cannot take them seriously on that account.
I would simply ask them, when their next opposition day comes around, to look at what is happening in the country and try to get their own act straightened out, rather than relying upon grease paint and coloured lights and magic lantern shows. They should come up with real propositions, real solutions and real contributions to this debate, so that Canada can get on and so that we can provide work for the unemployed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Evans):: The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta).


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister said he would be pleased to answer a question of mine if I placed it at the conclusion of his speech. I wonder if he would be prepared now to entertain my question. He accused another speaker of a dramatic performance. I would like to congratulate him on his own performance. Some might feel it was a flop.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Evans):: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, the minister has one minute left, if he would care to respond. He does not have to, obviously, but if he wishes to, he may.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lisgar.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, could I ask-


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


Mark Willson Rose: I asked if I would be permitted to ask the minister a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Evans):: With the minister's consent, the hon. member can ask the minister a question. The minister does not have an obligation to respond, but if the minister so wishes he may. He has declined to respond, so the hon. member therefore cannot ask his question.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker used up at least part of the time. I wonder if I could ask him-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Evans):: Order, please. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) has put a question. The time has expired and the hon. minister has declined to respond because his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Taylor:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, why do we not hear the question, by unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Evans):: The Chair can recognize the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody to ask a question and the minister can respond, if I have unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Evans):: I have unanimous consent. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody.


Mark Willson Rose: 1 thank hon. members of the House, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to ask a question.


Walter David Baker: Do not waste it.


Mark Willson Rose: I know the minister is very objective and would make a distinction between the importation of refugees or allowing refugees to seek refuge in this country and the importation of skilled workers, rather than providing training for our own Canadians. I know he does not wish to distort the attitude of the New Democratic Party in any way and I would like him to have the opportunity to clear that up.


Lloyd Axworthy: With the agreement of the House, Mr. Speaker, which 1 appreciate, I would be very pleased to answer the hon. member's question. I would point out to him that the New Democratic Party have been saying, on the one hand, that we should bring more people into the refugee program and, on the other hand, that we should not be bringing skilled workers in. Even though they are skilled workers, they are
April 2, 1982

going to jobs for which Canadians are not sufficiently trained and for which the skills are not available at the present time.
The NDP are therefore providing a detriment and a handicap to economic growth, because the only basis on which we allow skilled workers to come into Canada is that they provide further economic stimulus or a skill which is not available here. That is one of the reasons we introduced the national training program, to make sure that more Canadians have those skills. The NDP cannot have it both ways. They cannot say: "Import more people without any skill" thus adding to the problem, and at the same time say: "Do not bring them in". Because they are adding to the economic productivity of the country.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: It was with interest, Mr. Speaker, that I sat through the speech by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). One certainly would not think that the two of us came from the same province, Manitoba, when one listens to the Minister of Employment and Immigration talk about how things are, that the government may be at fault to some extent but it is trying to work through its economic problems, but really it is the job of everyone else to go ahead and give it the support it feels it needs.
At the same time, one cannot help but think that one of the things that is destroying the confidence of people in the country at this particular point in time is that businesses, large and small, individuals, labour unions, anyone earning any kind of income, are totally at a loss on account of the budget which the hon. minister had some responsibility for bringing down.
The budget is one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation this House or this country has seen in a long, long time and is directly the responsibility of the Liberal government itself. It came down in the face of all economic indicators that said that the economy was moving into a recession and that what was needed was not the kind of negative budget that the government brought in at that particular time.
The minister never touched on that. He never mentioned anything in terms of the budget, the direction in which the government is going, the fact that we are in a depressed time, that it is income tax time and there are still a good many things that Canadians do not really know in filling out their income tax forms because the government has not given the proper kind of direction and leadership.
He was right on one point, and that is that individuals or the opposition parties cannot blame the government for all the ills. But the party in power that has a cabinet and a Prime Minister, and that is certainly taking credit for running this country when times are good, must give good leadership. They should give direction to the country and to the people so that at least we know where we are going. There has to be a feeling of confidence generated by the government and it has to get through to the people. That is not happening at the present time.


Walter David Baker: That is right; that is the problem.
Supply


Jack Burnett Murta: The current outlook, Mr. Speaker, no matter how you look at it, whether from government sources or private sources, is very bleak; it is negative and frightening for the average Canadian. Statistics Canada in February warned that a current recovery is not imminent, that all indicators are negative and continuing to decline. In March they said a recovery is not yet imminent. Nothing really has changed. The outlook for exports, according to Statistics Canada, is not good for the automotive sector, particularly as it pertains to Ontario, and also the manufacturing sector is extremely bleak.
I suggest that in April we will have roughly the same kind of scenario, that a turnaround in the economy is still not imminent.
The outlook is bleak, and that comes not only from government sources but other sources. One of the reasons is that we are still continuing to have double-digit inflation, and interest rates that are astronomical by any standards. I will mention more about interest rates and their effect later on in my remarks.
Unemployment in this country is far too high. The decline in business investment and the weakness in the United States on which our economy depends to a large extent rules out the possibility of a quick turnaround in economic activity. For many Canadians this means disaster, not only disaster with regard to their job in the coming year, but their homes and, most important, the dignity with which they conduct their affairs.
We know what brought this on. It is a combination of many things. We are paying for past sins. Government spending is far too high and it is still climbing. Inflation, which is part of the whole question of government spending, is running far in excess of what it should be.
There is a lack of confidence in the government. In some cases people do not trust any political parties. They certainly do not trust the government in giving economic leadership. I am not necessarily saying Canadians should follow that leadership, but the leadership should be there. It is not at the present time.
The economic situation is so bad that every day the government has to borrow $30 million. It is spending money it does not have. In order to borrow that kind of money, it has to compete. It competes with the private sector and with individual Canadians who must borrow money for mortgages and capital projects. The government, which is the regulator in our society, is one of the main purchasers of money in the marketplace. Canadians must compete with the government. If Canadians followed the same kind of spending program as the government, they would be broke.
This year Canadian taxpayers must pay $17 billion to service the national debt. This figure comes from the spending estimates tabled in this House by the government. The debt service charge is increased by $2.1 billion over last year. It represents 22 per cent of the total outlay of $76.3 billion. It is significant that the size of the expenditure is about ten times

April 2, 1982
Supply
the amount the government will spend on economic development.
In spite of this expenditure to service our debt, we are not getting ahead; it just pays the interest. It is similar to the situation of someone who has borrowed to the maximum from his bank and can get no further credit, so he goes to another bank to make a loan to pay the first bank. This government has gone to a whole series of banks around the world. We are not only mortgaging what is being done at present, but mortgaging the future of our young Canadians.
The public debt charge is the fastest growing area in government expenditures. The government must borrow more money simply to pay the interest on the $122 billion it now owes. If a business borrowed in that manner, it would soon go bankrupt.
Other members who have spoken in this debate today have dealt with the matter of where the money should be spent. In times such as this, there are basically two areas. Money should be spent to help those who cannot for various reasons help themselves. People require help because they have been hurt by inflation, a stagnating economy and the stumbling and bumbling by the government through its budget and other tax proposals. It is absolutely necessary to target money for housing and other such areas.
On the other side of the coin, the government through the tax system and tax incentives should give encouragement and direction to the productive sectors of the economy. One that I am keenly aware of and know something about is the agricultural sector. Over the last number of years we have lost the ability to compete in world markets for a good many products. Canada has the potential to become a superpower in one area, much like Japan and West Germany have become superpowers in some instances. That area is agriculture. We can produce food more efficiently than most countries in the world. We can produce it on a par with the United States.
If we are going to excel, we must have an industrial strategy. We must attack the areas of greatest potential in our economy, as the Japanese and West Germans have. If we are going to capitalize, it should be in this area. We have lost to other countries in electronics, notably radio and television, and in automobiles. We are having problems trying to keep down auto imports as consumers want to buy other than what is produced in this country.
We could become a superpower in agriculture. We should direct our attention to that area and develop an industrial strategy aimed at agriculture. About 4 per cent of the population produces the food, but approximately 40 per cent of the total economic activity in this country is a derivative of agriculture or an agriculture-related activity. This is not happening at the present time. We are not directing our efforts toward an industry in which we could be the best. It is unfortunate, but I believe that the United States will take away more of our markets.
We have the potential to be a superpower in agriculture. However, the government is not giving it the proper attention which it should. Nation wide farm bankruptcies are up this year from last year by 75 per cent in January and 54 per cent in February. Although the figures are not out yet, the number of bankruptcies will be high in March and probably just as high in April and May.
Many farmers discover that they cannot finance their operations to put seed, fertilizer and chemicals into the ground for the spring. This is a shocking situation and unfortunately it is only the tip of the iceberg. However, it is the best indicator of the situation which is developing within the agricultural sector. Many farmers are being forced out of business either by foreclosures or by sales. Farm costs in western Canada have increased by almost 12 per cent. Over the past decade farm costs have run at over 300 per cent. This is largely due, certainly within the last few years, to a 635 per cent increase in interest charges on farm debt.
I know of very few other sectors of our economy which uses capital in the way the agricultural sector does. Agricultural authorities estimate that in 1982 the cost of farm input will increase by at least 10 per cent while net incomes will decline by an enormous 15 per cent. The gap is beginning to widen to such an extent that many agricultural producers are no longer caught in a squeeze, they are in a death grip. We must keep in mind that if one industry in this country is capable of turning our GNP around and generate economic activity, it is the agricultural industry because Canadian farmers can produce agricultural products better than any other country in the world.
All other costs related to farm production have also risen significantly. For example, the cost of machinery is up by almost 20 per cent, building and fencing costs are up approximately 12 per cent, supply and services rose 20 per cent and crop production input costs rose 14 per cent. All this occurs during a period of declining real income for farmers.
What does the government do in response to this situation? It introduces a Farm Credit Corporation program which provides such a small amount of money to the agricultural sector that it is spent before the bill has even been passed. In effect, it is technically allocated through Parliament and it is snapped up in a matter of days because of the very small amount involved.
These serious difficulties arise in all probability because of the interest rate and monetary policy which the government will not reconsider in relation to the interest rate policies of the United States. We will see interest rates being paid by the agricultural sector which admittedly are similar to the private sector in the range of 17 per cent to 27 per cent, if the projections for December of 1982 are correct. The reason for this high interest is that there will be a great demand for money.
April 2, 1982

It is unfortunate that during a debate on an opposition day we are unable to achieve greater response from the government. It is unfortunate that opposition criticisms and some proposed strategies which we believe should be pursued only fall on deaf ears. I suppose the only alternative we can hope for is that Canadians who are concerned about what is happening in Canada and the direction in which it is headed will read our debates and listen to our speeches and apply pressure to the government and all members of the House to find answers to our dilemma.
It is my hope that we can develop a made in Canada interest rate policy. I believe this policy is overdue and that it is time for us to develop our own policies to protect the productive sectors of our economy.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, today we are faced once again with an opposition motion on the state of the economy in this country. I heard the member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) tell us that the government did not seem to be doing anything, and on another opposition day, he said the government did not seem to want to specify what measures it was taking to improve the economic situation. Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and other ministers, and just now, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), have mentioned a number of government projects and measures aimed at improving the state of the economy. We are being told time and time again that the problem is our high interest rates, and that we should have made-in-Canada interest rates. The Minister of Finance has discussed this matter several times, and has said that our policy in this respect will be aimed at reducing the deficit and slowing down inflation.
We are maintaining these interest rates with a view to turning around the economy, and I am sure all Canadians will realize this, as soon as we manage to get out of the economic recession that is plaguing all countries, not only Canada. As soon as Canadians realize that we are, in fact, getting out of this difficult situation, they will agree that our measures and our policies were the best, in the circumstances. I have a few words to say about the Progressive Conservative motion that says our economic measures and the economic situation are forcing lay-offs and preventing job creation. That is somewhat surprising, because within our own Department of Employment and Immigration, we have implemented a vast number of programs aimed at reducing lay-offs and creating jobs. During 1981-82, through eleven labour market programs including community development projects, local employment assistance programs, summer programs for students and programs for the handicapped, we have created nearly 180,000 jobs. Other programs have been implemented in order to preserve existing employment, such as the work-sharing concept I mentioned
Supply
earlier. We have succeeded in saving nearly 12,000 jobs. There is another extremely interesting program that has been accepted by the Government of Ontario, and we hope other governments will follow suit.
Under the program, under Section 38, we have been able to provide 2,000 workers in Ontario with very interesting work which allows them to keep their jobs, while the community also benefits. I should like to give a few more details on the two programs I have just described. If we look at work sharing, for instance, this has probably been the government's most popular program in the past several years. During the last six months, we were able to sign nearly 500 work-sharing agreements across the country, which means that workers who would otherwise have been unemployed were able to keep their jobs in a number of Canadian businesses. Under the program, employees agree to work from one to three days a week and receive unemployment insurance benefits for the rest of the week.
Similar programs have helped a number of businesses to keep their workers employed and to remain competitive with other companies in the Canadian market. Last week, we had a striking example of this in Ontario, where a company that had agreed to the work-sharing formula was able to get three contracts for manufacturing instruments for other large companies. Mr. Speaker, if the company had been forced to shut down because of an economic slowdown, it would no longer have been able to compete on the Canadian market, and obviously, it would have lost the three contracts it was now able to obtain. That is why formulas like the work-sharing concept are extremely important to all areas in Canada. Ontario and British Columbia have signed the largest number of work-sharing agreements in Canada. Quebec has also had its share, and I hope that in the days and weeks to come, Quebec's industries will be able to benefit from this very popular formula, and thus safeguard the jobs of a great many Quebecers.
The other most important program, Mr. Speaker, is the new labour formula that we are now developing in consultation with the provinces under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Obviously under such a formula, workers who have unfortunately lost their jobs because of the economic situation and are now receiving unemployment insurance can come back onto the labour market and remain active, which means that they will be able to go back to their factories or to their former employers when the situation improves and be as productive as before. Such a program must obviously be developed in co-operation with the provinces, businessmen, industries and unions. The purpose is to create immediate opportunities for these workers who have unfortunately lost their jobs in the short term and wish to reintegrate the labour market. As I said earlier, we want to keep these workers busy so that later on they will be able to go back to their old jobs, and we are trying as much as possible to develop programs in the occupations where these people use to work.

April 2, 1982
Supply
As I said earlier, one province, namely Ontario, has signed an agreement with the Canadian government, thanks to which it has been able to keep or put back 2,000 workers in the labour force. Discussions are now under way with other provinces, including British Columbia, New Brunswick and Quebec. According to our most recent information, the negotiations with Quebec are still going on and we should be able to announce programs for Quebec within a few weeks. Of course, we are all aware of the problems of the forest industry in Quebec and other Canadian provinces. It will certainly be useful to come to an agreement with this government for reforestation and forestry programs which will give positive results in the future and will benefit the Canadian people and especially those who are employed in this industry.
As a matter of fact, as recently as March 25, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced subsidies of $220 million for the forestry and fishing industries. These subsidies, of which $170 million will be provided from the unemployment insurance fund, will create nearly
27,000	jobs in Canada. Of course, as far as fishing is concerned, we shall be able and we shall want to develop projects in areas such as the Gaspe Peninsula, the Magdalen Islands and the other eastern provinces. Naturally, when I speak of the Gaspe Peninsula, this also includes the whole North Shore of Quebec. All this shows that the subsidies which the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced last week are extremely important, and this is why we urge the government of Quebec to co-operate with the federal government to complete this process which is extremely important for these two industries, namely forestry and fishing. There is another sector of the economy which is very important and which must also co-operate with both levels of government. I am talking about the labour movement.
It has been suggested that the province of Quebec was somewhat lagging behind the other provinces in respect of the two programs I have just mentioned, because we have problems with labour. Mr. Speaker, some points that have been made are very compelling. In the March 24, 1982 issue of the newspaper Le Soleil, Mr. Fernand Daoust, who, I understand, is vice-president or general secretary of the QFL, is quoted as saying on the matter of work-sharing: "This is not a good direction for the Quebec labour movement." Mr. Speaker, it is my view that in the present economic situation, the responsibilities of governments, businesses, entrepreneurs and labour unions must go beyond individual ideologies or political partisanship. They should strike to create jobs for our workers and to improve economic conditions.
Only this week, the Prime Minister here in Ottawa made a speech on the problem and urged labour unions to cooperate more closely with governments. Mr. Speaker, I feel this is about the only solution for every group across the land, and particularly in the province of Quebec, as I stressed earlier, because our figures show that as far as work-sharing is concerned-and hopefully the same problem does not exist with
agreements made under Section 38-it seems that in the province of Quebec, the reason why we do not have so many work-sharing agreements is because there are problems with labour unions, and according to that press report, it can hardly be denied. Mr. Speaker, that is why I believe that labour unions in the province of Quebec, and in Canada generally, will have to act responsibly in the current economic crisis and ensure that during 1982 and until we can feel and see that recovery, we will have to cooperate with all levels of government, whether federal or provincial, in order that agreements of this kind may be signed.
Other areas necessarily contributed to job creation, namely our community development programs and our Summer Canada programs. I think I can deal at length with our community development programs, because the constituency I have been representing in this house for over two years received its large share of community development programs. In a region such as ours, we succeeded in building infrastructures in some municipalities that allowed them to frequently hire permanent workers, and to make community space available to municipal councils and to every social club or group that applies for it.
With respect to fisheries, we have also repaired, developed and improved fishing ports to enable a great number of fishermen, who would otherwise have to file an employment insurance or social welfare claim to resume or continue their fishing operations. Since 1971, we have invested in the Bona-venture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine riding alone almost $17 million. We have to check the facts and see, how many jobs I admit they are temporary, but I would say in 60 per cent of cases, it makes it possible for some workers to make ends meet, to live decently during a 12-month period and to maintain a decent standard of living so that our area, despite its massive unemployment will still remain an enjoyable place to live.
The other sector, Mr. Speaker, involves of course summer jobs. Over the past few years, I think that our Department has shown that we could take action and implement programs to enable our young people to re-enter the labour market and get summer jobs. We announced at the beginning of January that skills-training program. We hope that the provinces will finally manage to sign agreements for the five next years. With this program we make it possible for young people to complete their training and thus obtain a job which is available but for which they cannot apply because of a very minimal lack of skill. That program is intended precisely for the young, under 25, so that they can at least apply for available jobs.
With regard to summer employment, this year we will be able to provide jobs for approximately 30,000 young people. In December, we announced a budget of $100 million for that program; in March, the minister added another $20 million which will enable us to increase by 10,000 the number of students who can work this summer. Accusing the government
April 2, 1982

of causing lay-offs and failing to create jobs is simply refusing to acknowledge those figures; above all it is to refuse to accept the facts. We have programs for the young, for the unemployed and people in difficulty, which can help them get back to the labour force, and cope despite the current economic depression in Canada and throughout the world. So, in closing,
1 would say that the programs we already have and are implementing are extremely helpful and if governments, unions and employers can work together hand-in-hand toward a common goal, we will be able to overcome the economic crisis.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that I am delighted that you are in the chair. 1 am sure you will understand the personal reasons that prompt me to make that statement. It will be a challenge for me to continue when you are not in your normal seat.
In his remarks the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bujold) referred to shared work. In Germany, Mr. Speaker, that is called "short shift". I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has discussed with the Germans the problems it has created. It has been an abomination and has distorted the total unemployment picture. It has exaggerated the amount of money being paid out but it keeps the numbers low. Reference to the more than one million unemployed does not give the true picture which will become further distorted if this program is followed.
I will just pretend that the minister is in the House, Mr. Speaker, although it seems he could not stay long enough to listen to any positive suggestions that might be offered. He sloughed off the entire responsibility for the present situation to members on this side of the House. He said that we are totally responsible for all his problems. He also said we never make any helpful suggestions. We do, Mr. Speaker, but what good are they when he just talks and runs? I think he should stay here to listen or read some of the positive remarks that we have made in this debate.
The minister spoke about spending more money now. The problem with that is that the government has spent all the money over the past 14 years! It took the Keynesian theory and worked it in good times and now, in bad times, of course the Keynesian theory cannot work. The government got itself into this jam and now it is looking to us to get it out. We are supposed to save it from itself, and I think the public is starting to believe that.
The minister spoke about manpower training and the $1 billion that will be spent this year. He spoke of bringing 20,000 or 25,000 skilled workers into the country. But manpower training is a total failure, Mr. Speaker. It takes young people 18, 20 and 22 years old and provides them with an excuse to draw unemployment insurance while they are trying to learn a trade. I spoke to an instructor at Durham College in my riding about this. He wanted to know why the government will not allow them to put young people 15, 16 or 17 years old into a
Supply
proper apprenticeship program; that is the age when they are malleable. Instead, the schoolrooms are filled with people who are not there to learn a trade but only there to collect unemployment insurance. Members on the other side may disagree that this is the case, but it is what I have heard. I think the minister should go out into the community colleges and sit in a classroom for 45 minutes or so. I am sure he would be amazed at what he found out.
The minister spoke of saving jobs but, Mr. Speaker, I have to go home this weekend and meet with 1750 UAW workers who have been let out this week. That is a tragic situation which was brought about by the incompetence of the Liberal government.
Members of the government talk about natural resources, about manufacturing, about industry, but what we are concerned with here is human resources, people who do not have jobs. The government has not taken any action to get them jobs, either.
We must be concerned with the social impact of this situation. It is not new, Mickey Mouse patch up jobs that these people are worried about; it is their mortgage payment, their car payment and the cost of fuel. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) brought in the National Energy Program and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) brought in a budget, but the one thing they forgot was people. They think they can get enough money by raping the oil industry, but there is only one resource that will generate tax dollars and that is people. But that is only if the people have jobs, Mr. Speaker. They are the only permanent tax base we have.
The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) who is in the House this afternoon, has to admit that she has a problem. In Ontario for many years we have depended on our natural resources such as nickel, gold and copper but at present there is a lack of demand for those products, which is likely to continue. We will not get any revenue from our natural resources but the government still thinks it is going to make millions from oil.
The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) reviewed the figures in the National Energy Program. We have all heard them, Mr. Speaker. Each month the situation gets worse. But before I get into that, I want to put on the record a sentence I read in a brochure that was sent to me following the budget. It reads as follows:
Historically, left leaning socialist ideology tends to de-emphasize the profit motive and tax incentives and to promote government intervention.
That is really what we are talking about. Government intervention started with the National Energy Program. That program has done much damage to my constituency of Ontario. I am sick when I have to deal with my constituents who are wondering what they are going to have to do for their next dollar. They feel badly about receiving welfare. They are responsible citizens. They are embarrassed having to go

April 2, 1982
Supply
begging with their hands out. What this government is doing is to the public of this country to go begging.
A good example of that is what has happened to a company called Turbo Resources. Hon. members should take a look to see what that program has done to Turbo Resources.


Walter David Baker: It has torpedoed Turbo Resources.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is only an example of what has happened to hundreds of small independent oil companies and related services in Alberta, to the steel industry in Ontario, and to the car manufacturers in Oshawa. It is serious what this government has done. This government has put state intervention ahead of the people. That is what is killing this country.
I am sure that some of the multinationals are laughing because they are being subsidized as a result of this National Energy Program. They are being subsidized with foreign crude. That situation does not help this country. What it is doing is to export money from Canada, subsidize the multinationals on the one hand and take away the ability to develop new oil resources on the other. The only oil resources multinationals can develop are those located in Saudi Arabia, or the Middle Eastern countries, Venezuela and Mexico. What good is that doing for Canada? The National Energy Program is a very negative piece of legislation. It has really hurt the country. The minister has stated recently that he is going to open up the legislation again. He is taking a unilateral stand. He comes out with wonderful words. He is a master of words. I have great admiration for his ability to say so much without any content.
In western Canada we have 400,000 barrels of oil per day being locked in. We import 400,000 barrels of oil per day. We are exporting $16 million in cash a day. If that $16 million a day were to stay in Canada, think of the jobs it would create in the steel industry in Ontario, in the steel fabrication industry in Ontario and in the manufacture of half-ton pickup trucks in Ontario. This policy has hurt Canadians desperately. Interestingly enough, the government is paying out $16 million a day and the taxpayers are being asked to contribute $7 million a day from their pockets to subsidize this totally unsuccessful program. This program is a failure.
What has this program done to Canadian investment? There has been an exodus of 270 rigs from Canada. I understand that no one has been able to get a toehold on the amount of money involved, because it is so many billions of dollars, I certainly cannot keep track of it. I have heard that up to $18 billion is now being invested in the United States, Australia and in other parts of the world. But the real damage being done as a result of this is being felt right here in Ontario. Every day new statistics are announced. We hear about new lay-offs. Then we hear about a pipeline that is not going to be built. Directly affecting the steel industry.
But the seriousness of all this is the toll on human resources. In 1979, we produced in excess of 225,000 homes. This year, calculated on an annualized basis, it will be somewhat fewer than 100,000 homes. We will have a shortage of between
70,000	to 150,000 homes. Think of all the construction workers in Toronto who are unemployed. Think of all the lathe workers, the plasterers, the plumbers, electricians and woodworkers in my riding of Ontario, in Whitby, Pickering and Ajax who are unemployed. Those are the people for whom the government is doing nothing. This government is not dealing with the guts of this country. When I refer to the guts of the country, I am referring to the hard working Canadian citizens who have trades and who are capable of producing a product. Take a look at unemployment, Mr. Speaker.
In 1979, there were 800,000 people unemployed. That represented 7.5 per cent of the population. Today there are 1.1 million people unemployed, but as the hon. member to my left mentioned, the true figure is really 1.8 million. That represents 15 per cent of our work force who are unable to get a job to perform an important function for this country and to be productive.
What has happened to our money? We keep hearing from the government side that our government believed in high interest rates. That is what they told us. When we were in power, our interest rates averaged 11.57 per cent during 1979. Since the Liberals have been back in power, the interest rate for treasury bills peaked in August, 1981, at 20.85 per cent. These figures come from Statistics Canada. They are not dreamed up. They are statistics. What is the treasury bill rate today? The interest rate for treasury bills today is 15.32. The Liberals keep blaming everybody but themselves. We hear them say that it is the United States tight money policy; that it is what is happening in Europe and all over the place, that even the Conservative party is causing high interest rates. That is marvellous, but let us look at what causes high interest rates. Government spending causes high interest rates. The government is so grabby for funds because it wants to spend money.


Mr. Berger:: What about the United States deficit?


Thomas Scott Fennell: What has happened? Look at what was spent in the year between 1979 and 1980. The amount is $52 billion. Let us look at the current situation. If we look at the current estimates, the figure shown is $76 billion. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, and this whole House knows that spending will not be $76 billion, it will exceed $80 billion by the time the supplementary estimates are brought in. Together with the unemployment insurance problems and all the other problems facing this country, the government will not get away with less than $80 billion. Look at the increase in the figures. There has been an increase of practically $30 billion in two years.
I want to mention a word or two about manufacturing. Ontario was built on a manufacturing base. We have been proud of our manufacturing base. Today that sector is working at less than 50 per cent of its capacity. The Lake Ontario steel mill in Whitby is probably one of the most successful corporations this country has ever had. It expanded into the United States and with help through government loans-I will acknowledge that-it has expanded into England and into Ireland. It has been a very successful venture started by a very clever man who happens to be one of my constituents. They
April 2, 1982

are now in a position where they are not sure if they can hang on. This is a very creditable and highly productive company of which I am very proud. They are now in a loss position. In addition, they have an engineering company which employed worldwide about 40 engineers. They are now contemplating the winding up of that operation and moving to Texas. Isn't that sad? We are bringing in 25,000 skilled people and losing excellent engineers who know the steel industry thoroughly.
I do not know how many jobs we have lost and I am not going to quote statistics, but I do know one thing: There has been a net job loss in excess of 200,000 since 1979. Two hundred thousand proud Canadians standing there with their hands out, and hon. members stand up over there and say that with these band-aid solutions they are going to solve it all. Well, I am sorry, that is not good enough for my constituents.
Look at farm bankruptcies. They are up 93 per cent. Those are the people who founded this country. The farmers created what we have in Canada. I do not know how much longer this government is going to stand still. Almost 25 per cent of our total budget is used to service the debt the Liberal government has built up since 1968. And then they blame us for being too critical.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, look at what they have done. It is disgusting. The fatal blow finally came on November 12 in what I refer to as a non-budget budget. I do not know what it is and I do not think they do either. They turned the whole thing into state intervention as opposed to tax incentives and removed the encouragement to people to put their necks on the line and start a business. That is a severe tragedy for this country. They removed the incentive to save. The only thing worthwhile is to buy their bonds in the fall at 19 per cent plus. If we cannot get this under control, then next year we will put it up to 20 per cent plus. It is a total government grab which they have worked in here.
How can you expect the private sector and free enterprise to survive with a government like we have on that side? It is destroying us. They say, "Yes, but we go out and buy foreign oil companies". I am sorry, but that has not created one job in my riding. In fact, it cost a number of jobs because one lessee of Petrofina has been ill-treated by that same organization. They talk about mobility of labour, but remove the ability of industry to move people around. That is now a taxable benefit. I have talked many times in this House about what we need, and then they started to turn it around and they-I cannot use the word, but they illegitimized our concept of the Small Business Development Bond.
Let us look at how the United States has done it in the past. They have the small business act which provides that people can start with zero interest while they are building a business,
Supply
and then start paying interest up to a maximum, depending on their cash flow. That allows a company to build and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi)):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, once more we have had a fine example of bombastic rhetoric in this House where members of the opposition, as usual, assail the government for every problem imaginable. That is quite something coming from a party which claims to speak in the name of free enterprise. Yet every time a problem occurs they are the first to start yelling and screaming that, aha, it is the fault of the government. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, it is the government's fault that there are some 12,000 General Motors cars sitting on a dock in Halifax today.


Thomas Scott Fennell: It sure is.


David Berger: That certainly is the fault of the government. Yes, sir. Well, in a western newspaper, the Vancouver Province of March 30, there is an article, and what does it say? It says, "GM blows it". It does not say, "The government of Canada blew it", it says, "GM blows it".


Thomas Scott Fennell: Read the Oshawa Times this week.


David Berger: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the government which is responsible for all of these matters, but there are many serious ills in the North American automobile industry and in North American industry in general which have to be corrected by long-term policies such as the ones this government has adopted. These problems cannot be corrected overnight.


Thomas Scott Fennell: You have had 14 years.


David Berger: It requires, for example, training policies. It strikes me as amusing, Mr. Speaker, that every time the unemployment rate goes up by half a percentage point or something in that neighbourhood, we again hear cries of "introduce a new budget", or "bring in measures to create jobs". However, Mr. Speaker, I go back to my constituency every weekend, as most members do, and meet people in my constituency office, and-


Walter David Baker: Come back here on Monday with your tail between your legs.


David Berger: -those people, Mr. Speaker, would not be helped with a new budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Nickerson: Ask them.


David Berger: Many of these people, unfortunately, are suffering from what perhaps may be termed structural unemployment. They are people, unfortunately, who have graduated from high school or CEGEP and who do not have the skills to meet today's job market.

April 2, 1982
Supply

A few weeks ago, I met a young man who had just been laid off by CPR. He had been working for that company for three or four years, and as he was only 23 or 24 years old, he must have quit High School 5 or 6 years ago, having probably felt that 12 years of formal education were quite sufficient and that the time had come for him to enter the labour market. He had worked, as I indicated, for a number of companies, including, 1 think, a brewery where he worked as a deliveryman, and then as a shipper in a CPR warehouse before being laid off. Well, what did he want to do? He wanted to register for a course in aeronautics at the Edouard Montpetit CEGEP on the south shore opposite Montreal. When he contacted the Canada Manpower Centre, he was told that he had some catching up to do, that he would have to take two courses in mathematics and physics, following which he might be allowed to take a one-year course in aeronautics at the CEGEP of his choice. Which means that within a year and a half, after a year and a half of training and his course in aeronautics, he might get a job in a technical field, whether in aeronautics or some other highly technological trade.
To introduce a new budget at this time would not help this young man, because what he really needs is training and formal schooling to secure a place in an increasingly complex and technical job market. As everybody knows, the government is doing a lot for other young people in similar circumstances. A few weeks ago, the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced an increase of at least $200 million for job training programs. How did hon. members of the opposition respond to that? They said, "That is no good." Their message was: $200 million for job training programs, is not worth a damn. I should like now to repeat in English what I have just said for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite.
As I mentioned, here is a young man who has unfortunately been laid off because of present circumstances. He was working at an unskilled job. In rough times, who are the first to go? Naturally, it is those who are the most unskilled. However, at the age of 24 or 25, what has he decided to do? He has decided to take a course in aeronautics which will last about one year and a half because he will have to take physics and mathematics courses again before becoming eligible for this program. Perhaps a year and a half from now he will be able to find himself a place in this increasingly complex and technical job market that we know today.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced an increase of $200 million for job training programs a few weeks ago, what did hon. members of the opposition say? They said, "No, that is no good." Their message was, "It is not worth a damn", and it was sent to Canadians.


Walter David Baker: Oh, no, we did not say that.


David Berger: I happen to know, as I have had the experience of meeting individuals every week, that that is probably one of the most pressing problems in Canada today. An effort by business and government is required. As we all know, it is not the Government of Canada which has the primary responsibility for education in this country. When students graduate from high school and do not have skills to become part of the job market, that is when the Government of Canada is expected to find miracle solutions.
We have all discussed the creation of a better climate here. Several weeks ago there was a tremendous debate on parliamentary reform. We all say that we want to improve this institution. However, as I have said on many occasions, the responsibility lies with both sides. The rhetoric that we normally hear from the other side of the House is not really conducive to getting to the bottom of our national problems.
Another example of this rhetoric was evident in the speech given by the hon. member. He made the usual charge that the government's answer to everything is to throw money around. He said that government intervention and government spending was the answer, rather than creating a proper investment climate. I have just indicated that the government has an extremely important role to play in the area of manpower training. 1 would also like to mention to the hon. member opposite that the present high interest rates in this country may just be the result of the fact that the government of the United States has projected a deficit this coming year which will be in the order of $90 billion, $100 billion or $120 billion. No one seems to know for sure. But when our government makes an effort to substantially reduce its deficit-


Dave Nickerson: That is not true.


David Berger: -and the financial requirement of the government will be reduced by $3 billion this year, hon. members opposite who talk out of both sides of their mouths are not happy with that either.
I would like to turn to the subject of government intervention and quote an article datelined Tokyo which appeared in the New York Times on January 3 entitled "Japan's Challenge to U.S. is Policies, not Products". It said:
With much of the industrialized world stagnating, foreigners are studying Japan's approach. In France, Prime Minister Pierre Mauroy even tried to win support for Socialist nationalization plans by likening them, however speciously, to Japan's industrial policy. The United States, too, despite longstanding aversion to government economic intervention, seems increasingly interested.
Boy, oh boy! This is heresy! The United States is the bastion of free enterprise and capitalism, yet an article in this great capitalist rag, The New York Times, states:
The United States, too, despite longstanding aversion to government economic intervention, seems increasingly interested.
In reference to the policy of government involvement and assistance in the economy, such as that practised by the government of Japan, Frank A. Weil, deputy secretary of commerce in the Carter administration, was next quoted in the
April 2, 1982

article as saying that he believed that "the absence of such a policy in the United States is a major underlying cause of some of our fundamental economic difficulties".
Another example from the United States is found in a series of articles which appeared last year in Fortune magazine. The first such article appeared last June 15, and the following articles were published in that magazine until roughly the middle of August. An article which appeared one or two weeks before this series started was along similar lines and referred to the new electronic chip industry. This is an article in Fortune, of June 1, 1981. It says: "Japanese Score on a U.S. Fumble." In this article they outline how a little-known Japanese company based in San Diego, California, has grabbed a preponderantly large share of the $250 million a year United States market for a critical component of the microelectronic industry. The component in question is ceramic housings for the finest of those tiny electronic chips. This Japanese company based in San Diego, California, provides no less than 70 per cent of the ceramic packaging for semiconductors made in the United States.
They point out in this article that, first of all, the Japanese parent of this company was started in 1959 with a borrowed $10,000, $30,000 bank loan, and big dreams. I suppose that is the way most companies start off in the private sector, whether in Japan, the United States, Canada, or anywhere else. They set up a sales office in the United States in 1968. In 1971, during the 1971 recession, Fairchild Camera, whose semiconductor operation was financially strapped, asked this company, Inamori, to buy its ceramic packaging plant in San Diego. At that time the company was losing $100,000 to $200,000 a month. That is quite a challenge for a small company based in Japan to take over a company based in the United States and losing $100,000 to $200,000 a month.
While the Japanese investors were putting their faith in the United States and in this particular company, what were other American companies doing? Buffeted by the 1970-71 recession, they were hastily leaving the field to cut their losses. The San Diego plant, they explained, was faced by management, production and quality problems.
The United States managers did not take too well to Inamo-ri's "strive for the good of the group" management style. The plant continued to lose money, so they fired the Americans and installed five young Japanese as managers. These new managers worked as men possessed, the article says, from 6:30 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week, doing two or three jobs at once, even pinch-hitting for absent workers. As the confidence of this company grew, Mr. Speaker, the Japanese began introducing more and more of what they call the Japanese management techniques. What are these techniques? These techniques call for the development of mutual faith and trust among managers and workers. They demand people willing to work two or three times harder than anyone else. They also have quite a technique on quality. Most American industries apparently have a quality control system based upon casual
Supply
inspection or sample inspections, under which they might inspect one item out of every 20 of their product, but this Japanese company inspected every single piece of merchandise that went out of the company. What was the result? Their product became known for being better, for being much more durable, and they garnered, as 1 mentioned, over a period of time, 70 per cent of the market.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, that our economic problems are a lot more complex and need more than just crying out that it is the fault of the government every time there are 12,000 cars on the dock in Halifax, which some country will not accept because they are a shoddy product. I am not saying that that is the fault of workers or of management or the fault of the government. We have all to bear a little bit of responsibility in that. If we could cut down the rhetoric in this House and address ourselves to some of these serious questions, questions of productivity and manpower training, we might get a little bit further on the road to finding a solution to these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: I could not but wonder, as I sat here this evening listening to several government members, Mr. Speaker, if perhaps 1 was in the House of Representatives in the United States, and listening to the opposition.
They sit there and they talk about the Americans and their problems and you begin to think they are totally ignoring what is happening in this country. Certainly they would have us believe that they are not responsible for any of the problems we have here.
I was interested in the comments the previous speaker just made here, that the deficit in the United States this year will be somewhere around $90 billion. It is intriguing, if you put that on a per capita basis, that our deficit should be somewhere around $9 billion, but in fact we are up to $14 or $15 billion. We will know precisely in another year, after all the final figures come in.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to address this motion today. It deals with the crisis we are facing in Canada, in my riding and I believe the workers are facing the same crisis everywhere. Since the election of February 1980 the government has given us nothing but promises, promises that have proved hollow and often deceitful.
I want to begin by talking about two particular promises. The first promise is one that came out of the budget and was given to us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I would just like to quote it. It reads as follows:
The whole purpose of my fiscal strategy is to lay the basis for sustained growth in the future by clearing away the obstacles of high inflation and unprecedented interest rates .. . The policies and programs of the national government are major instruments for managing and exploiting these development opportunities-
The second promise I want to quote is on the National Energy Program. It speaks on the action which must be taken by the federal government. It says this:
16124

April 2, 1982
Supply
It must offer to Canadians, all Canadians, the real opportunity to participate in the energy industry in general and the petroleum industry in particular, and to share in the benefits of industry expansion.
We have been misled by those promises. Those promises have not been delivered. They have not been made good to the Canadian people. The government policies at the moment will bring about those promised results. The interest rates, as they say, should slow down the expansion of credit. They are supposed, then, because of the slowdown in the expansion of credit, to bring down inflation. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is not working. The reality of the situation is this, that in February 1982-just a month and a little better away-the loans by the chartered banks to businesses and farmers in Canada increased by 17 per cent. Inflation rose from 9.3 per cent in March, 1980, to 11.4 per cent in February 1982. The government policies are not having their intended effect. They are only hurting the people of Canada, they are hurting the small businesses, they are hurting the farmers, and they are hurting the Canadian workers. High interest rates are probably the biggest evil we are facing. Those high interest rates are great contributors to the farmers' difficulties, which 1 think are best demonstrated in looking at the bankruptcies, because that is probably the most obvious indicator of trouble. The farm bankruptcies have increased dramatically since 1979. In fact, in 1980 farm bankruptcies were up over 78 per cent from 1979. In 1981 they went up a further 18 per cent. What is going to happen in 1982?
As 1 travel through my riding, it does not look as if there will be any improvement. Many of our farmers have been forced to cut back on their production. They have been forced to sell off their assets. They are literally being taken off the jobs they have had on their farms. They are looking for jobs in the marketplace, only to find, as so many Canadians are finding that there are no jobs available.
High interest rates have discouraged our farmers from pursuing their livelihood. They discourage our young farmers from investing in land, farm equipment and buildings on their farm. They discourage even the most established farmers from developing, expanding and opening up new agricultural land which we so desperately need.
Our farmers are not laid off in the usual way, but every day we hear from farmers who are hit in almost every conceivable way with high interest rates, high input costs, high fertilizer costs and high energy costs. All those things are attacking our farmers daily. Our small businesses have also been hard hit by these high interest rates. A survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently said that one half of all businesses in Canada have cut back on their expansion plans, one third have laid off employees, three quarters have suffered profit reductions, 10 per cent have slipped into the red, in other words, no profit at all, in a loss position, all because of high interest rates.
When we look at the outlook for the future, if these high interest rates continue, we can expect that one third of the small businesses in Canada will end up closing, selling or losing at least part of their business. A large number expect
that they may go into receivership or experience bankruptcy. That becomes particularly significant when you consider the fact that 97 per cent of all the businesses in Canada have annual sales of less than $2 million. In other words, that high percentage of our business is made up of small businesses.
When you see that large proportion of our business sector, with half of them cutting back on expansion, one third laying off employees, three quarters suffering loss in profits, obviously there is not much hope for our future and much opportunity for jobs. What hope do our workers in Canada have?
Small businesses are faced with a double whammy. They cannot withstand a recession very long. They simply do not have the economic base. They do not have the source of funds to draw on. They do not have a foundation to survive a long, difficult period. Already we are seeing evidence of soaring losses in small businesses. In 1981, losses in small businesses were up 46 per cent over 1980 and in January 1982, they were up a whopping 74 per cent over January 1981. We are left with nothing but a picture of tragedy, a future of unemployment and despair.
In my region, one of the industries most hard-hit is probably the trucking industry. Many small trucking companies in my areas have closed their doors. Large trucking companies have cut back to the levels of business in 1977. Some, in fact quite a number, have less than one half the number of employees they had a year ago. The rest of those employees are looking for work in a market where there are no jobs. They have been affected by the high interest rates and the National Energy Program.
Another industry that has been severely taxed in the area of Peace River is the forestry industry. In my riding, there are two major employers in that industry. The first, Canadian Forest Products, has been laying off employees since the last of October. Proctor & Gamble, another company in my riding, has severely cut back production. It has severely reduced the number of private contractors. This year, the first time in a long time, it will not be hiring seasonal temporary labourers. Until now, the main beneficiaries of that temporary labour have been students. Where will they get a job this year? How will they earn an income to complete their education and prepare to enter the job market?
Proctor & Gamble attribute these cutbacks to high interest rates. It is no wonder that high interest rates are hurting these industries when we look at what has happened to our building statistics and housing starts. No one today is building houses or apartments. In my riding, housing starts are the lowest they have been in a decade. That creates two problems. First, no longer are jobs being created in the construction industry. Anyone who knows anything about business knows that construction is often the industry that gets things started and stimulates the economy. Now there are no new jobs being created in that industry.
The second one, and this will become increasingly serious as each day goes on, is that there are no houses being built and no apartments being built. What is going to happen? Where are
April 2, 1982

people going to live? Not only are jobs not being created by the building of houses and apartments, but homes are not being provided for the families who are each day looking for apartments.
I have been told that in the province of Ontario if a landlord was to build a new apartment building and he were to consider his financing costs, in order to break even-not show a profit but break even-he would have to charge rent in the neighbourhood of $800 a month. I suspect that is not only true in Ontario but in other parts of the country.
The question is what worker can possibly afford to spend $800 a month on rent? Obviously the many people on unemployment insurance in this country cannot afford that kind of rent, we can see the trend is well on its way for some very serious problems in this country, problems that are not reaching crisis proportions.
Where has the investor confidence in this country gone? Where has all the available capital gone? An investment in our country would develop our country. It would create jobs, build houses and would restore a sense of pride in our nation. However, that investor confidence which is so important and necessary to our survival and a good healthy economy, has been badly shaken. In fact, it has been shattered. Money that should have been invested in this country is being invested in the United States and Australia.
The National Energy Program, the promise I began with today, said that the oil industry would expand. Anyone who knows anything about that industry knows that has not happened. It is not true. The industry today in Canada is smaller than it was two years ago. While Canada has been discouraging investment, the United States has been encouraging it. What is very serious is that it is not that American investors have returned to the United States or Australian investors have returned to Australia. What has happened is that Canadian investors have gone to the United States and Australia. They have taken money from Canada, money which would have created jobs here, and invested it around the world. Canada is no longer considered a good place to invest, a good place to create jobs or a good place to create hope. That investment image is tarnished and, in fact, destroyed. The result is a smaller and weaker energy sector, which in turn results in fewer and fewer jobs.
Due to the National Energy Program and the uncertainly which it has created, Alsands, Cold Lake and our various Arctic projects are further away from being built today than they were six months ago or even two years ago. The federal government and its policies are moving us backwards.
The investment climate was further shattered by the November, 1981 budget, which was very much like an octopus in its attempts to reach out and grab and look for money and gain control. It was only a swipe at the investment community, our small businessmen and a swipe at entrepreneurial attitudes and approaches which we so desperately need in this country. It was a threat to the capital that we had available.
Supply
The budget has been a setback to the development of our resources and the expansion of businesses in Canada. The National Energy Program caused an outflow of cash and an outflow of jobs from the country and caused drilling rigs to be moved south of the border. It is estimated that an extra 10,000 oil and gas wells will be drilled in the United States as a direct consequence of the National Energy Program. The outflow of
10,000	oil wells becomes a significant factor just in terms of employment alone when one recognizes that each rig would employ 30 people directly. All of those jobs could have been and should have been in Canada. The use of those rigs should have been benefiting all Canadians by creating jobs and creating a flow of money throughout our various communities and into the housing, automobile and steel industries. This money would have come out of a constituency such as mine and into the heartlands of Ontario and Quebec. Instead of the economic development which the government has promised us, we are seeing that economic development in the United States.
In our region alone we recently had 60 oil rigs working. Today, we have nine. That is less than one sixth of the rigs which were there a short period of time ago. If that is multiplied by the thirty direct jobs associated with each of those rigs, plus the untold spin-offs to the construction, housing and auto industries, it represents 60 per cent of the manpower that has disappeared. In other words, 60 per cent of the jobs that have been associated with the service of the petroleum industry are gone.
Where are those people? They are lined up at the unemployment insurance offices and they are out pounding the pavement looking for work. But they cannot find that work anywhere. There has not been any further economic growth in my area for over a year. In fact, there has been no economic growth in Canada-our unemployment figures of more than 1.119 million proves that. Fifteen per cent of our young people in Canada, our future and our potential, are unemployed.
If you talk to people in my area about the National Energy Program and ask them about its benefits, they will turn around and ask, "What benefits? Where is the expansion of the industry? Where are the benefits we are to share?" To these people the National Energy Program has been nothing more than a cause of high unemployment in northwestern Alberta. A year ago, unemployment in that area was approximately 4 per cent. Since the introduction of the National Energy Program it has tripled to close to 12 per cent.
Early in 1982 there were 1,500 people looking for jobs in the city of Grande Prairie. There were only 90 jobs to choose from. The job vacancy as shown at our local employment office indicated there were only 90 jobs to choose from. In 1980 job vacancies peaked at 522. In other words, there were 522 jobs which were required to be filled. In 1981, that plummeted to 138 jobs which were required to be filled. As I just mentioned, job availability in 1982 went all the way down to 90, with 1,500 people trying to compete for them.
Unemployment insurance applications in my region have risen by 60 per cent in one year. While this tragedy occurs, the

April 2, 1982
Supply
government blames it on the United States and talks about its wonderful programs.
The fact is that people are losing their jobs on a daily basis. What is important about this is that unemployment which is occurring in my region is affecting established residents who have never before being unemployed or laid off. Our construction industry has always had a shortage of manpower. Today, it has too many workers. Skilled people in our region have always been in demand. Today, they cannot find work anywhere.
I have had discussions with our business people. They receive calls every day from people who are looking for jobs. They receive up to ten calls a day and they have to say to those people, "I am sorry, I do not need anyone today because I may have to lay off some of my staff this week."
1 get angry when I talk about this subject because there is massive potential in my area. We have massive proven gas reserves; we have foresty potential; we have agricultural potential; we have silica sand deposits, and I could go down the list.
If someone from anywhere in the world entered this part of the country, they would begin to dream of the opportunities, of jobs, of investment and security. This government has turned those dreams into a nightmare of tragedy and despair. This government has abused its right to govern and has abused the privileges which it was given in the last election.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak in the House as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I am very pleased to do so, especially after hearing the motion this afternoon, in which once again, the government is being blamed for the serious state of the Canadian economy. Of course, I prefer this kind of approach by the opposition to get its point across, to the steadily ringing division bells which did not really help the debate.
I may say first of all, that the motion is an interesting one if it is taken at face value, and I am thinking of the short-term perspective, but when we look at what is actually happening in this country and we compare Canada's present problems with the problems of other countries, we realize that our situation is quite similar to that of other nations, and that nevertheless, we have made a certain amount of progress. It is very easy, especially for those who are in the opposition, to blame the government for our present economic ills. In fact, the only mandate opposition members seem to have is to deplore the situation. They never feel like suggesting solutions. Since twelve o'clock I have been listening to hon. members, and I realize that one of our specialties is to deplore the situation and find a scapegoat, always the same one, without trying to
distinguish between various levels of responsibility. To give the House an example, I would like to talk about something I am more familiar with, namely, my riding of Manicouagan. I would like to talk about the problems of the designated area of Sept-iles-Port-Cartier, and I am sure the official opposition will have guessed which company I have in mind. Perhaps hon. members can draw their own conclusions. I am referring to Iron Ore Co. of Canada. Everyone knows this company and its president is well known as well.
Is the federal government to blame for the present problems of Iron Ore Co. of Canada? Is the president of the company to blame? Anyone who says it is the president's fault is wrong. I can assure hon. members right now that is not the case. Is the federal government to blame? No, it is not. Is it the international market for steel? This, of course, would explain the problem but does not solve it. Unfortunately, although the federal government, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has designated the area as a special area-there are four others in Canada, namely, Sorel-Tracy, Windsor and Sydney, Nova Scotia-and although we have made substantial amounts available to all kinds of companies and intervenors, it has been very difficult to attract investors. It is very hard to persuade top people in the management and investment world to get involved in new economic recovery programs.
Even the Iron Ore Company, with all its money cannot modernize the pellet plant which had to close down because this plant is already modern. All we could do was to help out the workers directly and provide temporary programs to keep them busy. This should show members opposite that even when you are the government, have money and know the chairman of the board, the problem does not depend on the government or the chairman of the board, but rather on the international economic situation. However, this does not mean that there are no answers. Earlier, I heard the previous speaker say that the future looks dark. It does when you look only at the problems rather than at the potential. The motion introduced today states that the government does not do everything necessary to assist business and promote economic recovery. But what major decision did the Canadian government make a few months ago, not only to help Canadian families, but also to promote a strong self-sufficient Canadian industry? The government decided to amalgamate the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to bring back under one jurisdiction the responsibility of analysing the economic needs of the country and geographic distribution so that various regions may become more or less competitive with each other. To show that these methods can be extremely useful and to show what has already been done, let us look at the Mitel Company, which, because of a well-structured organization by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce, has opened a plant in northern New Brunswick although it would have preferred a major centre such as
April 2, 1982

Montreal or Toronto. Of course, the 11 levels of government in Canada have demonstrated more willingness to fight one another about the abstract concept of Canada than defend Canadian economy. The discussions which have taken place over the last five or six years, and all our actions since the incredible OPEC increase in oil prices are blatant evidence that we have continued to act collectively as though the future held no threat. Only in 1977 or 1978 did we make a direct commitment to an energy policy and begin Canadianize our industry? For too long, our country was happy to export, to import, to have internecine quarrels. It is virtually because of the present major economic problems that everyone is beginning to realize the importance of co-operating and developing original methods for processing our raw materials in Canada, reducing considerably our exports and becoming much more competitive on the market, and in this regard, 1 am thinking about what other countries can show us. We have the example of Japan. Without any natural resources, but with an extremely developed research sector and concentrated technological industry, it has succeeded in acquiring very substantial markets. We have also started to look at the quality of our fish for the domestic market. Everyone knows that, with the three oceans which border Canada and the 200 miles on which we now have absolute sovereignty as Canadians, we have an extremely profitable and substantial market which we should try to make much more competitive.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) introduced a most articulated program for fish marketing and quality control. Here is an industry that normally should experience an extremely rapid growth over the next few years. For better than two years already, despite difficult cycles, it has been realized in the area of fisheries and oceans that the fishing industry has progressed tremendously in Canada. As far as pulp and paper activities are concerned, this country of course is covered with forests. And the government has had to impress upon the companies that modernizing their equipment is important. We were becoming obsolete in the face of competition and falling way behind with respect to new markets. Only three years ago the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in co-operation with the companies, introduced a modernization program. How was it that companies were not the first to assume responsibility for their own modernization? That is a question we should put to them. It is also strange that when the time comes for bringing out a budget, when normal input is requested from those industries, they immediately start complaining, although they are often besieging the government and pressing for grants and still more grants to do their own work.
There are important questions that should be asked at this stage. It is always easy to blame the government. It is the first thing that often comes to mind, and obviously the readiest for marking political points, and showing people that so and so is responsible. But speeches will not give the government and the country a sense of responsibility or a much higher economic
Supply
level. Over the next ten years, the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce and the DREE believe that 5.5 million jobs will have to be created, of which 40 per cent will replace current jobs and 60 per cent will be new jobs. Projections based on responsible analyses dealing with facts, show that within the next five or six years we will probably be short of manpower for those jobs.
Later on, someone will be speaking for the official opposition, and I look forward to hearing his comments. Already, there is a shortage of people in Canada for specialized jobs. We have to import jobs. So there are already two major problems in Canada. There is the need for a much more advanced industrialization in the areas of specialization and with respect to markets and competitiveness. And there is a major short fall in young people. There is no way we can build up the Canadian economy without at the same time obtaining from the provinces a quality of skilled training that would be on a pair with level of economic modernization. One goes with the other.
But already, right in the midst of a recession, the government has to import a certain amount of skilled help, because despite a 9 per cent unemployment rate, we cannot find in our country qualified people to fill these jobs. It is all too easy to say that everything is bleak. The future is much more promising than people will say, to the extent we as a country can take the steps needed to compete efficiently and also to build a strong domestic market. An educational effort is also needed to inform our fellow citizens.
Just now I referred to a designated area in my riding, namely Sept-Iles-Port-Cartier. I have already explained what the problem was in Sept-iles. Port-Cartier has a mill, and offers have been made to several companies to come and set up a business there, but despite very attractive grants, only two companies have shown an interest. Actually, any positive developments will be due to the fact that the government will be a major participant in activities to put the Port-Cartier mill back into production. However, the major forces at work here are neither money nor politics but the need for restructuring our domestic economy and the influence of the international economic situation. The latter, however, would be intolerable if the government did nothing to counter it. I feel that the measures taken by the government which, quite frankly, are often far from perfect, and that is understandable, I feel that these measures are in line with the objectives of the opposition in this respect. I am convinced that the present situation will be temporary, although it may not evolve as fast as we would like. Anyone who is unemployed, even if he is the only one, is in an extremely difficult situation which prevents him from finding his true place in society. However, it is no use making long speeches and telling people that the government, any government, has the answer to their problems. That would be most unrealistic.

April 2, 1982
Supply
If we look at other countries, for instance Great Britain, where Mrs. Thatcher's government has a policy that stresses private enterprise, has done away with social measures and made budget cuts-they now have an unemployment rate of over 13 per cent. Last year they had major social problems. Look at France and the policies of Mr. Mitterrand, who believed that with socialism French style, he would be able to turn around the French economy. After a few months in power, he is also facing major problems, such as higher unemployment and a substantial devaluation of the franc. Scarcely twelve months ago, Mr. Regan in the United States seemed to be the saviour of the North American economy and now he is also anticipating deficits, and it is not because he failed to take strong action. Mention could also be made of Italy and other countries. Obviously, there is no miracle solution.
They want to talk about interest rates. 1 remember that when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power, Mr. Bouey appreared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and at the time, that party approved Mr. Bouey's policies and confirmed him in his present duties for seven years. It is easy enough to criticize and speak out when in opposition. But when the time comes to take concrete solutions, they realize it is not so easy.
Another major issue which I would like to raise in connection with this government is the creation of the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development called MSERD, which will be responsible for allotting substantial financial projects in Canada and ensuring that every area may enjoy the benefits of the Canadian economy. Often in the past, even if DREE has made every effort during the ten last years to balance the Canadian economy, it became obvious that the economy was concentrated in cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, that is in large centres. Now, Canada is much more then those large centres, it is perhaps first and foremost the outlying areas. There is much to do as far as regional development is concerned and there is no lack of means available, but the fact is that the various partners must come together. Here is another example with regard to attitude and co-operation.
Let us deal with the energy dispute between Newfoundland and Quebec. 1 am sure the opposition is well aware of the position of Premier Peckford, of Newfoundland, which differs considerably from that of Premier Levesque. If only Quebec and Newfoundland would come to an understanding, the whole territory of Wabush, Labrador City, Fermont and Schefferville in northern Quebec could be developed, for the benefit of Newfoundlanders as well. But while the two provincial governments keep on fighting, their populations are paying the price. But answers to such political problems do exist. If the Quebec-Newfoundland dispute could be settled tomorrow morning, some $20 billion would be earmarked for investment in that area. If this makes some members opposite smile, let them read once again the remarks made by the president of Iron Ore, an excellent source of inspiration for the hon.
member for Manicouagan. They would realize that tremendous possibilities exist. But for some years, the development has been hampered by endless disputes between the provinces themselves and between the provinces and the federal government. If we believe in the same country, if we believe in ourselves, we should be the first to develop our economic potential.
I think that the challenge we have to meet now is to stop crying over our problems and consider our potential. But we seldom do that; we would rather complain about our neighbour and say that we are powerless. On the contrary, we can build something. But we must have the ability to work along with others. Likewise, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine(Mr. Bujold) mentioned the workers a while ago. We need this social consensus, this type of understanding among governments, investors and the workers, the only possible way to a sound economy. Without such a consensus, we will continue to fight each other and waste our energy. In conclusion, I suggest that the motion moved by the Progressive Conservative Party seems to me to be quite irrelevant at this time and that what we really need is team work.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Thank you Mr. Speaker, for finally calling time. I rise to support this motion which clearly condemns the government for following the policies which are destroying our manufacturing industries which make the things that Canadians need.
The government is knowingly and willingly causing unemployment. At the present time 1.8 million Canadians are jobless and the number is increasing. The government knows that this has come about largely because of its policies, yet it intends to continue with those policies.
What has caused so much unemployment is the government's plan to move Canadian workers away from private industries and public services and to employ Canadian workers to provide the things that Canadians need. The government plans to force these workers to move to new locations at temporary work sites in the Canadian north to dig up the oil, gas and coal and then ship it to other countries. With those products, hundreds of manufacturing jobs that are needed by our people will be lost. No doubt the banks and a very few rich corporations will grow richer, but most Canadians will grow poorer.
This plan was announced by Senator Olson and applied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and his cabinet colleagues. The movement of workers, forcing them away, is done by the planned destruction of certain markets. This is the plan I wish to examine in the hope that we can Find a way to reverse this evil policy.
During the past few weeks I have been in touch with Canadian workers, trade unionists and manufacturers in the
April 2, 1982

footwear industries, mainly in Spadina, but also in other parts of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. The over-all pattern is the same-lay-offs because of almost uncontrolled imports from low-wage countries.
These past few months have been a nightmare for those engaged in the footwear and tanning industries. Since December 1, the date the government's new policy for footwear began, thousands of workers have been laid off, and the effects of this continued to spread throughout the related industries and service sector. Unionists and manufacturers in my riding see nothing but gloom ahead if the government's policy is not changed. At this stage their frustration is turning to bitter anger as the government refuses to budge. Let me trace for this House the events in their most recent struggle.
The government-commissioned anti-dumping tribunal began its hearings on the Canadian footwear industry in July, 1980, nearly two years ago. Organized labour, as well as manufacturers' associations connected with the industry, were in broad agreement on the type of action required to save their industry. The unionists argued before the tribunal that to maintain the approximately 20,000 jobs of direct workers, tanners and suppliers, effective global import quotas would be essential. The quotas would have to be global in both the geographic and generic sense. There must be no exceptions.
The industry had been engaging in a significant transformation process despite the patchwork approach of government. There was the three year breathing space at one time, an additional year at another, the plugging of import leaks after damage is done and the continual studies to decide what to do next. The industry argued that this atmosphere of uncertainty was in itself hampering the manufacturers' efforts at modernization. A significantly longer period of stable expectations was required for the upgrading of plant and equipment and for long-range planning to assure the survival of a more modern industry which could provide incomes and working conditions on a par with other Canadian manufacturing industries. They admitted that the number of jobs might not increase significantly, but that these jobs would be better jobs in every sense of the word and that they would be secure within the context of a stable competitive industry. They further accepted the fact that imports would always account for about half of our domestic market, even under long-term protection. Together with the manufacturers' associations, they argued that comprehensive and global import quotas should be instituted until the end of 1989 to achieve their stated goals.
In February, 1981, the anti-dumping tribunal published its report. Those engaged in the footwear and tanning industries were cautiously triumphant. The tribunal had supported the position of the industry in almost every aspect of their exhaustive research and especially on two very important points: that the protection required to save the industry must be long-term, and that it must not exclude any type of material.
The tribunal found that our industry had not been able and will not be able in the foreseable future to compete with
Supply
imports from low-wage countries. And this fact, they emphasized, is for reason of price alone. The Canadian industry is competitive in style, quality, and product range. Workers in our industry point out that the wage difference between Canada and low-cost countries is partly due to our good legislated working conditions which, unfortunately, are not at present incorporated into the labour laws of many developing countries. The social costs of exploitation are enormous and no one would propose that our labour force should divest itself of the benefits for which it has struggled over the decades. There is just no fair comparison between our wages and those of workers in developing nations. We hope that those countries will improve their labour laws, but at this time their governments are enforcing unfair competition. The following quotation I assure you is not at all out of context:
Imports of leather footwear from (low-wage) countries now compete directly in the middle price points of the Canadian footwear market, where Canadian producers direct about 90 per cent of their product. In the absence of import restraints, the ability of the domestic industry to retain even its present share of the market would be seriously threatened, and the possibility that this situation would be any different in five or ten years time is remote.
That is the opinion of the tribunal appointed by the government. But clearly the government has not followed its recommendations.
Meanwhile, our industry is partially paralyzed awaiting the next moves of exporting nations which will soon flood our markets in response to this opening of the gates, despite the pleadings from manufacturers and unions. That comprehensive protection over a longer period of time would be required to finish modernization and to stabilize the industry. The government has chosen to try yet another angle in its short-term harassing approach.
In the statement of the new policy the minister fairly boasts that Canada will remain one of the world's most open markets for footwear imports; as indeed it does. If the import penetration continues to increase as a result of this leather loophole and a virtually meaningless system of quota protection, we can look forward to losing our whole domestic leather footwear industry, becoming 100 per cent dependent on imports and becoming world leaders in helplessness. This seems to be precisely what the Minister of State for Economic Development, Senator Olson, had in mind when he stated a few weeks ago to the Liberal student club at the university of Victoria:
We're going to stop propping up mature industries that will never be competitive in this generation, like textiles, clothing, footwear, and a number of others.
The new footwear policy, announced on November 24, sent shock waves of alarm throughout the footwear industry, and especially the sector in Quebec where leaders immediately read the message for the footwear industry whose products are close to 90 per cent leather. The Quebec government with unions and employers' associations set up a task force united in their resolve to have this new policy reversed. They appealed to many members of the House. They appealed through the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), a member of the minister's own party, through my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and also through the Quebec minister of industry, trade and tourism. They got

April 2, 1982
Supply
absolutely no response or encouragement from the minister of trade and commerce.
In January, the task force wrote to the government asking for essential changes in the new policy. These were a limit on the import of leather shoes to 40 million pairs per year and a guarantee for Canadian producers of 50 per cent of the domestic leather footwear market. By this time the terrible results of the new policy were clear. Over 6,000 of 20,000 jobs had been lost in the four months since the minister brought in this ruinous policy. The minister continued to ignore complaints. In March, Jean-Guy Maheu, president of the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada, wrote to the minister. In part his letter reads:
We have not been asking for a favour, Mr. Gray. More than a year ago, the Tribunal found the industry threatened with serious injury from imports of footwear-leather footwear as well as non-leather footwear.
His letter continued:
The only way to prevent the complete demise of our industry is to review the policy immediately in order to include leather footwear in the global quota.
Next week there will be unemployed workers and industrialists here to speak to Members of Parliament about the serious danger of complete destruction of the industry. Although the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) asked for our views, but did not stay to listen, I will nevertheless outline the idea that has been proposed by the leader of my party. Canada needs to establish production agreements in key sectors, Canada needs to establish production agreements in key sectors with multinational manufacturing firms. These agreements will concern the value of production of such manufacturers in Canada. The aim must be to ensure that
production in Canada in key sectors, whether aimed at the domestic market or the export market, will equal sales in this country.
We have a powerful position from which to negotiate such agreements. As the national government of Canada we control imports. We can do as many of our trading partners in GATT are now doing and insist that imports shall not destroy Canadian production.
In leather footwear, the very first step in this direction is to guarantee at least 50 per cent of the Canadian market to Canadian producers. This must be done at once, otherwise Canada will lose its leather footwear industry as we lost our rubber footwear industry through destructive government action.
Canadian workers and employers in the footwear industry are good workers. They work hard and well and they produce good products. They have a right not only to fair pay for their productive work, but also to be able to provide that market for Canadian products which Senator Olson so despises. I call on this government to scrap Senator Olson's philosophy and the ruinous trade policy built on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Watson):: Order, please. It being 5 p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Monday, April 5, 1982