1982-06-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is in regard to an incident which occurred yesterday near Mile 475 on the Alaska Highway in northeastern British Columbia, involving a civilian commercial transport vehicle carrying United States Air Force bombs of the type M20 Rockeye. The vehicle overturned dislodging and spilling a number of these active projectiles over a wide area.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police out of Fort Nelson, who were called to the scene, ordered the closure of the highway, and later in the day a United States military task force, including an explosive ordinance disposal team, arrived via Hercules aircraft at Fort Nelson, British Columbia, to take charge of the material. Having regard to the fact that this shipment was made-and the highly critical clean-up operation commenced-without the involvement or even the knowledge of our own military authorities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the Minister of National Defence be required to avail himself of the earliest opportunity to inform the House what action he is contemplating to implement or improve any regulations governing such movements of dangerous military hardware through our country by our NORAD partners.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the matter 1 wish to raise is urgent as this is the last day I can do so this year in this chamber. It is important because the event, even though 38 years ago, led to the overthrow of the Hitlerian
Fortress Europe by the western allies of which, at that time, Canada was the third principal force. Mr. Speaker, on June 6,
1944,	allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, ultimately to achieve, 11 months later, VE Day on May 13,
1945.	In that heroic struggle hundreds of thousands of Canadians participated, soldiers, airmen, sailors-not all men, since there were thousands of women in uniform in World War II.
It would be invidious to pick out units or formations for fear of missing out many brave men, whether soldiers storming the beaches, sailors manning the ships and boats of those first armadas, or the thousands of Canadian airmen who kept the skies relatively clear of the enemy or who prevented the movement of enemy reinforcements.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of National Defence who, like myself, saw the June 6 landings as the first of the rescue mission to those of us who were on the wrong side of the battle lines by reason of earlier activity:
That this House go on record as saluting the bravery and sacrifice of those Canadians who on June 6, 1944, gave of their lives in the struggle to defeat the evils of Hitlerism and its heartfelt congratulations to those Canadians who survived to go on to ultimate victory.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to put this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, fish in Lake Ontario have been discovered to contain the highest levels of dioxin ever recorded. Given the fact that the prime source of dioxin is the chemical dumps situated in the United States, making this a bilateral problem, and given, according to a press release from the office of the Prime Minister, that National Environment Week runs from May 20 to June 5 this year in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):

June 4, 1982
5.0.	43
That the government indicate when it will start taking seriously the problem of pollution in the Niagara River, the Lake Erie ice boom, the Garrison Diversion project that will affect Manitoba, and show good faith by appointing a Canadian chairman to the International Joint Commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On June 2 at Gladstone School in my Vancouver constituency, over 250 people met to protest the unilateral decision of the Government of British Columbia to impose an above-ground rapid transit system in the Commercial Drive area. Whereas the Government of Canada is contributing money to the Advanced Light Rapid Transit System, ALRT, which could be built underground for only an additional 1.5 per cent of the construction cost, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett):
That the Government of Canada increase its contribution so that the necessary funding can be provided to build underground and thus save this very vibrant local community from needless destruction.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-88, passed by this House over two months ago, gives the Farm Credit Corporation, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the power to raise money by any means, and I quote:
The Corporation may, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, borrow money by any means, including issuing and selling bonds, debentures, notes and other evidences of indebtedness of the Corporation.
Recently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made statements to the effect that the FCC, because of this new provision, will have SI billion of additional funds available to
farmers at lower interest rates. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Minister of Agriculture be requested to make a statement on motions at the earliest possible date, advising Canadian farmers when this additional funding will be available and at what interest rate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COST OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ELECTRICITY-USE OF DAIRY HEATERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, electricity on Prince Edward Island is generated by oil-fired boilers causing that province to have one of the highest electricity rates in Canada. The majority of dairy farmers on P.E.I. use electrical hot water heaters for heating the water used for washing their milking equipment. There are heat exchangers on the market which dairy farmers could use to utilize heat from milk being cooled, to heat the water necessary for washing their equipment. Regular use of these heat exchangers would help to make eastern Canada less dependent on expensive foreign oil. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources immediately change the Canada Oil Substitution Program so that it will include heat exchangers that are available to dairy farmers to utilize the heat from milk to heat water.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The announcement by President Reagan from the Versailles Economic Summit on behalf of the United States of America is a very positive one. Economic policies are bearing fruit, inflation in the U.S. is down, and interest rates are falling, he is happy to report. Personal savings are improving and economic recovery is imminent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the motion is urgent, would the hon. member please get to the point?
June 4, 1982


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary the Canadian economic picture today shows the Canadian dollar as the weakest since the depression of 1930. Interest rates climbed today by .5 per cent. Unemployment is rampant. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That this House call on all members of the Liberal Party in the cabinet and backbenches to stop being puppets of the Prime Minister and stand up and be counted along with the opposition, and call on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to bring some positive action to this sagging economic situation in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. This week the government established two records, an all-time low for the dollar and an all-time high for unemployment. The statistics this morning show that unemployment stands at 10.2 per cent; that is an increase of 45 per cent over last year. We have lost 320,000 jobs since August;
22,000	last month alone. So far, Mr. Speaker, the government has refused to take off the federal tax on construction materials to help the construction industry. It has refused to expand the Small Business Loans Act to provide emergency funding. It has refused to increase its investment in research and development.


An hon. Member:: Question.


David Edward Crombie: It has refused to support the Canadian automobile industry, and the Canadian textile and shoe manufacturing industries. Since the government has refused to do these things we have asked it to do, would the Acting Prime Minister tell us what things his government will do to get this country back on its feet?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the figures this morning on unemployment are to be deplored. We are the first to do that. The government has done a number of things in the past with respect to employment, with respect to the structural aspect of it, and so on. This has been stated in the House on a great number of occasions.
There are some things that the opposition could do to help. Let me give some examples. In my own area of transportation,
Oral Questions
I have got a ports bill waiting in this House. Most of the members of the opposition have said they agree with it. The marine community of Canada wants it very badly. The opposition could help this morning very substantially by giving me this bill in the coming month. This would enhance the capacity of ports in Canada at this time.
I have got another initiative on western transportation-$ 17 billion in the next decade.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am telling you what I am doing. The members of the opposition could be very helpful in restoring confidence by approving of this move.
There is quite a number of things that this government is doing. The opposition could be very helpful, too, and it may be that they should take their responsibility for that today and for the rest of the month.


David Edward Crombie: Every unemployed Canadian knows the inadequacy of that answer.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
David Edward Crombie: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This minister is responsible for the level of unemployment. He must be shaken by the fact that 320,000 jobs have been lost since last August, 22,000 last month alone. The government insists that somehow our salvation lies with the United States. In the United States the employment level has gone up, while ours is going down. Since these are made-in-Canada problems, where are the made-in-Canada solutions?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are all very disturbed by the increase in the number of unemployed, according to the return quoted this morning. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that this government has taken a number of very important initiatives in order to save jobs amongst workers. We now have well over 1,700 agreements under the work-sharing program, which affect 83,000 workers. As a result we have been able to save a number of jobs and have averted a number of lay-offs.
Equally, I would point out, as did my colleague, the Minister of Transport, that if the member from Rosedale is as anxious as he appears to be, he can help people come to grips with the unemployment problem. Today we will be debating a bill on training that will authorize expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars to bring many new Canadians into the training programs. If the hon. member and his colleagues would co-operate, we could pass that bill today, have it in

June 4. 1982
Oral Questions
committee, and have it ready to be operating within a week's time. It would provide many new places for tens of thousands of Canadians. This is a case where, if the opposition were as concerned as it appears to be, it has the opportunity to give us the assistance we need by helping us pass that legislation.


REQUEST FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST UNEMPLOYED
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. He knows that his work-sharing programs account for 69,000 avoided lay-offs. This does not at all touch the 1,241,000 people who are on the streets today. Despite the programs and pronouncements of the minister, we lost 22,000 jobs last month alone. Surely the minister's responsibility is for all the unemployed, not merely for the 69,000 in the work-sharing programs. His responsibility is for all people who are unemployed. The country is looking for some economic leadership from the minister and from the government. I should like to ask him one more time: what will he do for the people who are unemployed today?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, again, the time in question period would not give us full scope within which to state the number of programs we have in place. Let us just clear up some of the misinterpretation by the hon. member. To begin with, when he talks about 1.2 million people on the street, they are also on the street with substantial support from the unemployment insurance fund which was established to provide for support during this period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Hon. members seem to discount the importance of that, but our unemployment insurance system is one of the most critical supports and foundations for unemployed people in the industrial world. The government is committed to maintaining it and, furthermore, building upon the program.
We have now signed agreements with the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and other provinces, to provide not only for training but for a number of new employment projects in the forestry and fisheries areas. We have a number of alternative programs to provide employment, and we would be much better off in the country if the opposition would give some co-operation and help, rather than simply always raising a big fuss and a lot of noise.


THE ECONOMY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and of the Prime Minister. This week the Government of Canada had to defend the Canadian dollar by running down its foreign exchange
reserves, by borrowing abroad, and by increasing the rate of the Bank of Canada and interest rates generally. If the Canadian dollar is so strong, why must it be defended by higher interest rates which are causing businesses to collapse at near depression lows, and are costing thousands of Canadians their jobs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can only say what is obvious, that there is a major problem of confidence in the world today. The meeting at Versailles should-and we all pray that it will-bring about a good amount of confidence in the economy. Canada is reacting to the situation in the same way as the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. We are all looking for ways and means to get out of a very, very difficult international situation.
The Minister of Finance has repeatedly said what was at the roots of the problem. He indicated that fact that the inflation in the United States has gone down to 6 per cent or 7 per cent and the fact that interest rates remain at 16 per cent have created a U.S. dollar attractiveness in the world which is upsetting the world economy at this time.
The other day the Minister of Finance repeated that he would adjust to circumstances. He kept all his options open. He promised to the House that he would review the situation after his return from Versailles. He said that if he had to go to the market for more money, he would present his case to the finance committee and would indicate what were the figures. That is the situation in which we are now, and hopefully by next week, when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance return, we will have a better view of the next steps.


INTEREST AND INFLATION RATE LEVELS
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to correct him. The major problem is not lack of confidence in the international economy; it is lack of confidence in the way the government is running this economy. The government-and the Acting Prime Minister has just repeated this-has repeatedly blamed Canada's economic problems on American economic policy. If that is the case, why are United States interest rates and inflation rates coming down, while Canadian interest rates and inflation rates are continuing to be very high?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was not very original. I stated the position which is understood to be the one in all countries of the world. The United Kingdom, France and Germany also identify the source of major discomfort in the world today as being the situation which exists, as I explained, in the United States.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and myself have indicated a number of things that the opposition could do in a positive fashion to help us all in this situation. I think the opposition has some responsibility also. I
June 4, 1982

mentioned the ports bill as being very important. The hon. member, who comes from the great city of Vancouver, knows that the marine community in Vancouver wants this bill. Why does she not come out now and arrange things so that this bill will be passed? It will create a great amount of enthusiasm in Vancouver about the future of ports and transportation in that city. The members of the opposition, I repeat, have some responsibility also.


REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUDGET
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister as well. Since last fall's budget, unemployment in Canada has continued to rise month after month. Today it has reached, in real numbers, almost two million Canadians. Every Canadian knows someone in our country who is unemployed. My question is straightforward. Will the government now acknowledge that its budget is completely out of date, and will it accept its responsibility to provide some job security to Canadians for the coming summer and say that it will bring in a budget before we recess, a budget that recognizes the need for action?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot answer that question except by repeating what we all said here this morning. The Minister of Employment and Immigration said in particular that a number of programs have been created to take care of chronic unemployment as well as structural unemployment. I will not repeat them all. He has reported in the past few days on a number of programs such as job sharing, and a number of initiatives to help students through the summer. All these things have been done.
There is hope that the meeting at Versailles-1 underline "hope"-might begin to resolve some of the more basic issues in the world today. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance went there, and they said repeatedly before they left that what will come out of Versailles will influence their decisions in the future. That is all I can really say. The hon. member cannot expect me to say more than that today.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister should know, as all Canadians know, that the programs that the government has produced up to this point are simply not working. Something in addition is required, and that is the message we are trying to get through to the government.


INVESTMENT IN MANUFACTURING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Canada faces an economic crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the war. What is required now is economic leadership by a government that will level with the people of Canada and make it clear that there are no quick fixes, but will produce some grounds for hope. In this context my supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Since he and his colleagues refuse to commit themselves to produce a budget before the recess, I would at least ask him if the government
Oral Questions
will recognize that the way we can get job security is to put investment into the manufacturing sector, and at least commit the government to produce some new initiatives to create manufacturing jobs before we recess.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is saying is that what is needed is more government spending. Most people, if not all, agree that one of the causes of inflation in Canada today is the deficit in government expenditures. Most people say that the deficit accumulated by this government is excessive.
My hon. friend has recently discovered that manufacturing will be the solution to Canadian economic problems. At other times in the past others have said that natural resources would be the solution. At other times maybe a few NDPers have said that services were the key to prosperity. But on the manufacturing side, on the industrial development side, there is hardly a day that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or another minister does not announce a major initiative, a major participation on the part of the federal government in some project.
My friend loves to go to the west coast. At Prince Rupert three quarters of a billion dollars are being invested in that port. If he goes to Roberts Bank he will find that we are quadrupling the facilities at that port. In Vancouver, container terminals have been expanded.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am just repeating this to help hon. members in the House and the population to realize the extent of what the government does now. My hon. friend would like us to do more. That is a debatable argument because, if we did much more, we would contribute to the deficit which contributes to inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has said would be humorous if it were not so sad. It is true that something has been done in Prince Rupert, but it is also true that more than 100,000 men and women today are out of a job in the province of British Columbia alone. It is true that we need much more action. That is what we are demanding on this side, and that is what the government does not seem to understand. I point out, before I ask my last question, that it was the Minister of Finance himself, not people on this side of the House, who said that his budget was outdated and that we needed a new economic statement.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT RESIGN
John Edward Broadbent: 1 would like to ask, in view of the answers that the minister is giving us, whether he is not really admitting that the government has given up its serious obligation to govern, that it refuses to provide any

June 4, 1982
Oral Questions
economic leadership and that, in short, it has lost any sense of mandate to govern, and should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, before the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance left, they indicated that, upon their return with the assessment they will be able to make of the world situation following the meeting at Versailles, they will be in a position to review the situation. They have repeatedly said that.
What I was trying to argue with my hon. friend is on the sort of mood that he tries to create that the Government of Canada is not doing anything. I was trying to counter that suggestion to the best of my ability, in the field in which I operate, the field of transportation. I could take the hon. member from coast to coast and show him what is happening, and he would realize how much the Government of Canada is doing. It is high time that he gave the impression to the people of Canada that he recognizes that. So, now he seems to agree with me.


John Edward Broadbent: No, no.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will try it again, then, at the next opportunity. The next question is, how much more can the Government of Canada do? If the Government of Canada does a lot more than it does now, it brings about a series of problems-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. AND MRS. ROLLY FOX
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to call the attention of the House to the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of Mr. and Mrs. Roily Fox, the parents of Terry Fox.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, of which I have given him notice. It is with regard to the incident which occurred yesterday in northeastern British Columbia, at Mile 375 on the Alaska Highway, involving a civilian commercial transport vehicle carrying dangerous military hardware, namely, United States Air Force bombs of the type M-20 Rockeye. The vehicle overturned, spilling a number of these bombs over a wide area. Incredibly, no one was on site to inform the public of the hazards associated with this incident,
nor was our military authority nor the minister's office informed of the shipment.
First of all, it was done without consent. The clean-up operation, involving a United States military team which arrived in Fort Nelson in a Hercules aircraft, was also carried out without the knowledge and consent of our own military authorities. I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared, after the question period, to make a statement with regard to this important and serious incident?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the details here of the accident to which the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River has referred. I will supply him with some of the details of this accident, if he wants them, but I do not think there is any need to make a statement on this issue. The involvement of the Department of National Defence is only marginal. It was routine shipment of munitions from Alaska to the United States, which happens quite often. All precautions were taken. The shipment was passed through customs, the necessary permit was obtained from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and everything which had to be done was done. All the munitions were properly crated and rendered what we call "safe", so they could not explode.


Mr. Epp:: What else could they do?


Mr. Lamontagne:: 1 repeat, all precautions were taken to ensure that there could be no accident. The accident was probably caused by the driver. I do not know exactly how it happened, but as far as the public in the area is concerned, there was no risk to life, risk of explosion or anything like that. The clean-up is under the control of the emergency people from Alaska and from the company, and the Alaska Highway will be opened in due course.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the answer is sufficient.


CLOSING OF HIGHWAY TO CIVILIAN TRAFFIC
Frank Oberle: The fact is that this shipment was made under permit from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was not a specific permit, but one which covers all such shipments on an annual basis. The fact is that the military authorities who were asked about the danger instructed the RCMP to close the highway. The highway has been closed to civilian traffic for a day. These bombs are loaded. They were equipped with safety pins, yes, but I am told by the military officials that if a train had hit the truck, say, near the metropolitan centre of Vancouver, these bombs may well have exploded.
It is incredible that our military authorities are not informed of these shipments. I am not denying that these shipments have to be made. Certainly under our arrangements with NORAD, our air space and our highways will from time to time be exposed to these dangers. We should certainly be prepared to
June 4, 1982

accept these dangers, but there must surely be more control. We must be informed so that, when an incident occurs, the public can be informed of the danger and hazards associated with it, and civilian transportation facilities can be kept in place.
1 ask the minister again, will he first of all order his officials to review the procedures governing such shipments? And, at the earliest opportunity, will he make a statement in the House on the outcome of such a review and what he intends to do to allay some of the obvious fears that the people in my constituency presently have concerning the future?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, for the satisfaction of the hon. member I can certainly look into the procedures followed at the moment to review whether they are still safe. But, as I have just mentioned, every possible precaution was indeed taken. As far as being advised of every shipment is concerned, our department is usually advised of what is going on. But in the case of the normal transportation of ammunition, where safety procedures are in fact respected, we just take it for granted that everything is going well, and the proof is that everything was taken into consideration, that is, there was no explosion or anything to risk the lives of any of the people in the area. Despite that, I think that we can look into the procedures to see if they can be improved.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, who says the opposition has some responsibility. If he remembers, the hon. member for Rosedale gave him five options. But I want to ask him a specific question about youth unemployment.
Canadian youth between the ages of 20 and 24 today are facing a staggering 20.2 per cent unemployment rate. One out of every five of these people is unemployed, out of work, has no job. The minister and his government place a lot of stress on important initiatives. I therefore ask the minister why youth unemployment is going up despite these programs and initiatives.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the situation with young people in this country is one that is now being shared across the economy. There is a lack of growth in the economy. This is something that is being shared by all industrial countries. We have tried to put a program in place that will supply work for over
55,000	young people this summer, through our Summer Canada program. At the same time we have put in place a network of over 400 employment offices across Canada, the purpose of which is to begin working with businessmen to
Oral Questions
develop job placements for students and to provide an area where students can register for those jobs.
As I said in the House before, we need the active co-operation of members to work in their own constituencies and regions to help businessmen register the jobs in those places so that they will be available to the students. Again, we are dealing with a situation and circumstance which is shared by all countries, as we have seen in the discussions as a prelude to the Summit meeting. We are taking initiatives in this country to try to respond to this to the best of our ability.


ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Despite the comments of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, those initiatives are not working. Youth unemployment is going up, not down. The minister said that is due to a lack of growth. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate why this lack of growth is now directly related to the government's budget, its economic leadership and, for example, the loss of jobs through the operations of FIRA?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the last point in particular regarding the treatment of foreign investment in Canada is debatable. In a debate on that subject, different positions are taken. This morning I tried to indicate to the opposition that a number of things can be done which necessitate their support. I was quite blunt about it. There are a number of instances in which they could be helpful in restoring confidence. Occasionally the opposition should do something other than oppose.
I might mention that this morning great emphasis was placed on the unemployment figures. Another stack of figures came out this morning. No one has mentioned them yet. The trade figures are quite good. We are now running a surplus of $5 billion, which is up $3 billion from a year ago at this time. Yet, I repeat, nobody has mentioned that fact.
1 also tried to indicate that there is an element of positivism, if I might put it that way, which should be in the air at this time. There should be an element of confidence in the air. Every one of us has a responsibility in that regard. Yesterday I read an article from Paris "Match" which stated that, of five leading countries, Canada is considered the place with the highest standard and the place which inspires most confidence. It is about time that we reimported that confidence.


COST OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ELECTRICITY-USE OF DAIRY HEATERS
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 gave him notice of this yesterday, and further notice today. Electricity on Prince Edward Island is all generated by oil-fired boilers, causing Prince Edward Island to have one of the highest electricity rates in Canada. I am sure the minister is

June 4, 1982
Oral Questions
aware that there are other means of reducing the use of oil. The majority of dairy farmers on P.E.l. use electric hot water heaters to heat the water used for washing their milking equipment. There are heat exchangers on the market which dairy farmers could use to utilize the heat from the milk being cooled, to heat the water necessary for washing their equipment. Is the minister prepared to make use of heat exchangers that are available to dairy farmers eligible for COSP, off oil conversion?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question and having sent me further information this morning concerning the machines to which he has referred. I will be pleased to examine this question with my officials and inform the hon. member of the conclusion we reach. I would advise my hon. friend, as he may well know, that we have expanded the COSP program in the maritimes, and conversion to propane is now eligible for COSP grants. 1 will study the suggestion with great attention.

[ Translation)


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. This month it seems that, once again, northwestern Quebec has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. Nearly 27 per cent of the workers in this area are unemployed at the present time, which demonstrates the abject failure of the Liberal economic policies. Would the Acting Prime Minister agree, on behalf of the government, to implement job-creation programs immediately in order to help this northern area where unemployment has taken such disastrous proportions?
[English)


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, a number of negotiations have been carried out between members of this government and those in Quebec. We announced that we are working with the Government of Quebec to establish a program under Section 38 dealing with the forestry industry. We have opened up discussions in other areas where we can apply our job-creation money to assist those in those hard-hit areas. In addition, the members of the government and their respective departments have provided initiatives, as my seatmate, the minister of trade, has, for
example, which brought about major investment in Bombardier and which will provide close to 20,000 jobs in that province. We are looking at a number of programs in the area of the Gaspe. There are a number of initiatives that have been taken by the government to provide aid to the Province of Quebec. We are certainly open to further suggestions because we want to co-operate with all sectors of that province to ensure that the people there have the employment they require.

[ Translation)


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In Quebec City, his counterpart, the Hon. Jean Garon, stated before a parliamentary committee that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans failed to meet his commitment to arrange for a meeting, and that the federal minister was working hard to solve the problems of his own province, namely New Brunswick, and ignoring the problems of Quebec. Could the minister inform us whether his policies are seriously holding back the development of the fisheries industry in Quebec and whether it is true that he does not want to meet his provincial counterpart?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, if the most dramatic increase ever in the history of the Maritime fisieries means holding back the fisheries in Quebec, I have the impression that fishermen would be asking me to hold back a bit more. After all, fishermen in Quebec have received the lion's share and a big lion at that, as a result of an increase in quotas for the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I am sure that the member for Manicouagan and other hon. members can give convincing proof that this is happening. As for the meeting with Mr. Garon, several appointments were set up, but at the last minute I always received a call that the minister would not be able to make it. There comes a time when decisions must be made and they must be announced: that time came for me. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I did not go out of my way to pick a fight with the Quebec Minister of Fisheries. 1 think that in certain areas we have been able to co-operate, but with respect to others the minister is making allegations which are not altogether accurate. For instance, he says that the reduction in herring quotas was done on the spur of the moment, although he knows perfectly well, or he would if he took the trouble to read the files of his officials, that the herring problem has been going on for at least three or four years. In any case, I shall refrain from further comment, because it would only make matters worse.
June 4, 1982


EMPLOYMENT
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In spite of all the claims he has made about creating employment and keeping people off the unemployment rolls, by virtue of the statistics put out today his efforts have clearly been inadequate. The president of the Board of Trade of Sydney, Nova Scotia, has said-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put his supplementary question?


Cyril Keeper: What is the minister planning to do which will be adequate to meet the employment needs of some one million Canadians? What is he planning to do today?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to what we can do today, the hon. member can be equally helpful because a bill dealing with a new national training program will be presented for second reading. That bill will provide employment prospects for tens of thousands of Canadians. If the opposition cooperates and allows passage of that bill, those Canadians can be in new training positions within weeks or months. It is as much up to the opposition as it is us as to what will be done.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There are reports that Canada and Spain may have reached a fisheries agreement which would give our Atlantic fishing industry greater access to the multimillion dollar Spanish cod market. Since the Spanish fleet is presently overfishing outside Canada's economic zone, or 200-mile limit, and has for 17 years implemented non-tariff barriers against Canadian fish exports, has Spain now agreed to enter the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization-or NAFO, as it is called in the trade-and has Spain agreed to abide by its regulations?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, there have been some negotiations, and the Spanish government has indicated a readiness to join the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization. The matter as to whether we will have a final agreement is still open. We are looking at the negotiations, and suggestions which have emerged from the negotiations, and I am not in a position to give a final judgment yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough.
_____________________________18111
Oral Questions


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Canadian Press has apparently quoted the Liberal Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre in response to the unemployment figures released by Statistics Canada today, to the effect that "the situation has deteriorated much faster than I ever imagined, and it is much worse than I hoped we would ever have to endure". He said that there must be changes, and "Mac-Eachen knows it".
Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the perceptive statement made by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre as quoted by the Canadian Press and, if so, can we reasonably expect the major changes to which the hon. member has said we can look forward?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, who is quite familiar with the Minister of Finance, could find many quotes from the Minister of Finance to justify what he has said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore on a short supplementary.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since Canada should only give allocations to the Spanish fleet after Spain proves its willingness to open its markets to Canadian exports, and in view of the very high rate of unemployment in Canada today, and especially in the fisheries industry, has the minister received this assurance and, if so, how many tonnes of Canadian salt cod can we expect to sell this year to the Spanish market as well as to the European Economic Community?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I said to the hon. member in my first answer that we had not arrived at a final conclusion as to whether the advantages offered under the negotiations would justify going ahead, or whether our goals were completely met. I certainly would hesitate to stand here and say that if there is a signed treaty or a signed agreement I would not accept the word of the nation with which we would be signing an agreement, and I am sure the hon. member did not want to imply that.

June 4, 1982
Oral Questions
On the question of unemployment, I might say that what worries me-and it should worry the Canadian industry-is that our overdependency on one market is leaving us more exposed than I would like to see, to having full warehouses of unsold fish. It is necessary to discuss in a very rational way the leverage we have to get into some non-traditional markets. Frankly, I hope the industry will stop wanting to have it both ways, which is to get all the fish but then to have nothing left to negotiate some market entrance. 1 fear this debate has been going on for too long in the industry.


THE JUDICIARY
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the submission to him of the report of the Canadian Judicial Council on the conduct of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger of the British Columbia Supreme Court. Since this case is unprecedented and it is important that the country and the judiciary be fully informed as to what, if any, are the recommendations in that report on judicial conduct, is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to release that report in its entirety and, if so, would he inform the House today?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is unprecedented. It is a very important precedent because the division of powers in our country is very well established, and we have to make sure it will remain so. The report is on that very subject, and after a lot of reflection I have decided to make the report public later on today. I hope it will not be considered as a precedent, but because there has been a long and very great debate in Canada about this subject, I think it is my duty to make the report public.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On March 23 in a committee I inquired of the minister whether the application by Cargill Grain for an oilseed crushing plant at Melfort was being considered, at which time he assured me he would review the case. It is now two months since that time, and since the Minister of Employment and Immigration has been talking about joint job-creation programs, and this being one of those kinds of programs which would create jobs, has the minister reviewed the case, and is he now in a position to assure Cargill that he will accept its application and that the project will go ahead? What is the situation?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the application in question was rejected by my predecessor. After I became minister, the Cargill company presented what it said was some new information justifying a fresh look at the situation. I have been taking a fresh look at it, but I have not concluded my work.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, since the Acting Prime Minister seems to be totally unaware of the unemployment crisis in British Columbia, I will turn to his seatmate, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and ask him if he is aware that the unemployment rate in British Columbia has gone up 70 per cent since this time last year. Is he aware that at present the unemployment rate is 11 per cent and, in some areas like Prince George, 19 percent? Will the minister therefore tell the House specifically what job-creation programs the government has in mind for British Columbia, particularly job creation in industry, and what programs there are to make permanent jobs available in industry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have been making some announcements involving specific job creation on a permanent basis. For example, we have supported AEL Microtel and its new microchip facility, which will create some 500 jobs. We have supported the Duke Point industrial park and marine terminal, which has just opened in Nanaimo with the very substantial support of the federal government. We have assisted Ebco Industries in the setting up of a numerical-controlled machining centre to compete more effectively in the aerospace sector. These are some of the initiatives we are taking in the manufacturing sector to create jobs in British Columbia. We intend to proceed along those lines because we recognize the seriousness of the situation and the importance of diversification of the British Columbia economy.
At the same time, unfortunately, we are not in a position to take steps to improve and deal with the very serious recession in the major markets for British Columbia products, namely, the United States and western Europe. I hope there will be an improvement there. In the meantime we are working to try to deal with some of the most severe aspects of the situation in British Columbia which we recognize as serious. We are taking some initiatives which are designed to create long-term manufacturing jobs, an objective which I hope we all share, for the workers of British Columbia.
June 4, 1982

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Transport-


Pauline Jewett: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Prud'homme: Later! The minister will soon be announcing his decision on the transfer of flights from Dorval to Mirabel. Could the minister give us the assurance that one of the criteria in his recommendation to cabinet will be to consider the serious economic consequences any transfer of flights from Dorval to Mirabel might have for the general economy of Montreal Island and its immediate surroundings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have no decision for the House this morning, but I shall comment in a somewhat philosophical vein on the issue itself. There are people who are saying that we must take into account the immediate interests of the workers, employees, carriers and so forth. Others are saying that no, on the contrary, we must look to the future and ask ourselves whether the drawbacks of a double airport at Montreal are not substantial enough to justify the immediate transfer of these flights. I merely wish to show that there are two sides to the issue and obviously, both sides will be taken into account in the decision we shall make.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, June 3, 1982 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
* *
*



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I want to do so before the Acting Prime Minister leaves the chamber. Earlier in the question period I am afraid he unintentionally misled the House with the response that he gave to the lead question from
Introduction of Bills
this side. I wish I could get his attention for a moment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is a point of order before the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister has charged that the opposition is holding up passage in this House or is even holding up debate in this House on the content of the new ports authority bill. Where the minister has unintentionally misled the House with this charge and accusation lies in the fact that the government-and he is very much aware of this-has limited debate in this matter to a short day. If we cannot guarantee and promise a short day, in the words of the government House leader, he will not let the bill come forward.
I would not want the minister to leave the impression among the port communities in this country that I, having responsibility for this party for leading this legislation through-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 believe the hon. member has made his point and it is not a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-656, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (salaries).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes a maximum annual upper limit of 6 per cent on the indexation of members' salaries. This is a direction in leadership that this House would be very wise to consider seriously in this very difficult economic period.
Just consider, Mr. Speaker, the effect on the nation of members of the House not following the direction of this bill, if we should undertake to give ourselves a 10 per cent or 11 per cent increase in January. I recommend this bill to every member of the House.

June 4, 1982
18114___________________________________
Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[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. 4,156, 4,277.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence place a $1,440,000 order with Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. for superheater headers ship sets under contract no. 15MJ.2701385-III (2MJ81-02435) and, if so, how many sets were ordered?
2.	Did the department purchase skis from K.K.W. Sports Enterprises Ltd. for $10,875, contract for ski instruction from Silver Star School of Skiing for $38,400 and purchase ski tow services from Silver Star Sports Ltd. for $19,200 and, if so (a) how many pairs of skis were purchased for $10,875 (b) who is using the skis (c) who is using the ski instruction and towing services (d) how many soldiers are taking part in the ski training program (e) how many instructors were provided (f) over how long a period does the program run (g) what is the purpose of the program (h) will there be other similar programs and, if so (i) how many soldiers will take part (ii) what is the expected total cost?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Supply and Services as follows:
1.	The Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, placed a $1,440,000 order with Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. for 12 sets of superheater headers.
2.	(a) and (b) Yes. The Department of National Defence purchased 150 pairs of cross-country skis which constituted part of a normal replacement purchase for the Ace Mobile Force (AMF) battle group.
(c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h)(i), (ii) The contract for ski instruction and ski tow services is in support of the ski training program for 1 Canadian Brigade Group. Five hundred and twenty two soldiers participated in the program which was conducted over a five-week period starting February 2, 1982 and ending March 10, 1982. In support of the program 16 instructors were provided. The purpose of the program is to train soldiers in alpine skills, encourage and maintain physical fitness and enhance esprit de corps. Similar programs are being planned annually for a maximum of 640 soldiers at a cost approximately the same as for this year's.


Mr. Taylor: 1. Will the government be represented at the Canada-wide conference to be held in Ottawa, May 7 to 9, 1982?
2.	Did the government contribute directly or through Cl DA towards the cost of running the conference and, if so, what amount?
3.	Did the government contribute directly or through Cl DA or any other government organization towards the travelling expenses of Sam Nujoma of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and Oliver Tambo, the leader of the African National Congress (South Africa), who are planning a tour of Canada in April 1982 prior to the conference in May and, if so, what amount?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The government will not send delegates to the Canadian Conference in Solidarity with the Liberation Struggle of the Peoples of Southern Africa held in Ottawa, May 7-9, 1982. An official of the Department of External Affairs will attend the conference as an invited guest.
2.	The Department of External Affairs and CIDA will not contribute toward the running of the conference.
3.	The Department of External Affairs and CIDA will not contribute toward the travelling expenses of persons from Africa.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have received a notice under Standing Order 26 from the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent). I believe the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is going to present the argument on his behalf.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my leader who is unavoidably absent, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the crisis in the Canadian economy, composed of the following disturbing elements: the record high level of unemployment of 10.2 per cent of the work force, nearly two million Canadians if the hidden unemployed are included; the collapse of the National Energy Program; the weakening of the Canadian dollar; and the increase in Canadian interst rates. All of these elements constitute an economic national emergency unprecedented in the post-war period requiring immediate action to put into place a program of national economic regeneration.

June 4, 1982


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As provided for in Section (2) of Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Oshawa has given me due notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the crisis in the Canadian economy.
There can be no doubt as to the importance of this subject for all members of the House. The application refers to problems which have been of concern to the House and various aspects of this chronic and continuing problem have been discussed almost on a daily basis for an extended period of time.
A series of bills relating to the National Energy Program have been and will be discussed by the House for weeks. Since December 10, 1981 the elements enumerated by the hon. member have been chosen as the subject matter of at least eight opposition motions under our supply procedures and debated in this House. 1 must draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that on December 18, 1980 he, together with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), sought leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of, and I use his own words as reported on page 5888 of Hansard of that date:
-discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the economic crisis in Canada-
That application was accepted by the Chair. I must point out that the application was accepted on the eve of a proposed adjournment of the House for a period of time. Today the proposed subject is "the crisis in the Canadian economy".
As Madam Speaker pointed out to the House last Wednesday, the Chair is bound by the conditions laid down in Standing Order 26. Section (16)(d) of that Standing Order reads as follows:
-the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session pursuant to the provisions of this Standing Order-
Therefore, the Chair cannot accept the hon. member's request for an emergency debate on this subject at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-115, to establish a national program for occupational training, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we discussed during question period this morning, members of this House are quite justifiably concerned about the level of unemployment in this country and are asking for some real answers on that issue.
National Training Act
How can we come to grips with the problems facing many Canadians without jobs? Mr. Speaker, today members of this House have the opportunity to do something very real, tangible and concrete about that problem. We are introducing for second reading a bill which will authorize the government to put in place a brand new national training program, one that will affect young people, workers in existing plants and factories, and those coming into the work force. The bill will affect literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are attempting to respond to changing economic conditions. So, Mr. Speaker, in a very immediate sense there is an opportunity for this House to show Canadians that we are concerned, not just in a rhetorical way, but in a very clear and real way, and that this Parliament can take action to respond to their needs.
Equally important is the fact that this bill will provide a foundation and framework for developing responses to the job market throughout the 1980s. We will be experiencing major alterations in the way people work in Canada. There will be a new world of work, a new technology and new industry which will require a substantially different set of skills on the part of Canadians. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most important investments we can make as a government is to ensure Canadians are capable of responding to this new technology with the appropriate skills.

In the '80s we are going to see a number of changes; changes in the price of energy, in our industries, in computer science and in technology. Workers will have to adapt to these changes. Mobility, re-training and new work standards are aspects that will become more important for Canadian workers. For instance, there will be more women in the labour market. Training and education will be necessary to fill the positions that will be developed during the '80s. The job world is changing.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I addressed a conference of combined representatives of community colleges across Canada, the people who provide a large proportion of this training. The conference dealt with the impact of new technology. They realize that in a very few years there will be major adjustments for people working in the service industries, such as insurance companies, banks and the public service. Secretarial pools will be replaced by word processors. Of course, this raises, honestly so, the fear over the impact this new technology will have, and whether it will put people out of work. Mr. Speaker, I do not fully associate myself with those concerns because I believe new technology also creates work, but only if people are trained for and able to adapt to the new skills required. So we are talking about an investment in the future of this country of immense proportions. We are talking about assuring hundreds of thousands of Canadians that they have hope in the future.

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
It is important to note as an historical footnote that the introduction of this training act is one of the first clear examples of the way in which the parliamentary task forces, established two years ago, have been able to have a major impact on government policy. Members will recall that at the beginning of the new Parliament the government established five or six task forces to enable it to come to grips with changes in the economy and society. One of the most important of those was the task force chaired by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), but with a membership from all three parties. That task force visited communities right across Canada and met with all kinds of Canadians in business, labour and education. A very clear message came from those Canadians that we needed changes in our training programs. We needed more money, new institutions, and we needed to improve substantially our flexibility in order to produce a first-class training system, one of the best in the world. I want to say to Members of Parliament, particularly those on that committee who spent many long hours working on the report, that they can see in this bill a very clear reflection of their investment of time, energy and creativity in that task force.
This government has honoured their work by bringing forward a new training bill which will give us the opportunity to establish the foundations of a new training system in Canada. I wanted to pay my own compliments, Mr. Speaker, to the members of that task force for the work they have undertaken. Equally so to those members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, with whom it has been my great delight and pleasure to meet on many occasions during the two years I have been the minister of this department. On those occasions they provided a number of new and creative suggestions as to how we should deal with training in Canada. Again, this bill is a reflection of their contribution.
The bill is not something which is necessarily the subject of partisan debate; it is something we can all agree to and should agree to because it reflects a sharing of responsibility of members from all parties. That is what gives me particular pleasure in being able to bring forward this bill. However, I want to provide one caution, Mr. Speaker. I do so with a clear realization that Members of Parliament will want to have the opportunity to debate this bill and to discuss its merits and suggest whatever kinds of amendments or concerns they might have.
I would put toward them a very clear choice. We can either spend a long time going over territory that we have gone over before and thereby run the risk of having this bill sit on the agenda for months on end, or perhaps even lose the bill because at the close of the summer session it may die on the Order Paper; or we can enact this bill with dispatch so that it can become law and we can get down to the business of training Canadians in a new kind of way.
I make a special appeal to members of this House, in particular in this debate today on second reading, to allow us
to have second reading today so that the bill can go to committee. Then we can spend time in committee going over the details. If we are not given the opportunity to pass the bill on second reading, with the kind of parliamentary timetable and agenda that we are facing we are running the risk of not having this bill proceed further. I particularly address my remarks to the members of the opposition to help them realize that the choice is in their hands. With the kind of demand they were making today in question period, a legitimate demand, that this government do something to help Canadians and especially young Canadians, it is very clearly their responsibility. We can do something very real today by giving this bill passage and moving it through committee so that it will become the law of the land and we can get on with the training of Canadians.
Why is it so important, Mr. Speaker? Let me spend a moment giving a short history to show why this bill is central to the initiation and development of a new training system for Canadians. The Allmand task force, a task force that was commissioned by my own department, clearly showed that there were major faults in the present system. Perhaps the most important omission was that our present training system, largely funded by the federal government to the tune of over $800 million in the past year, was training a number of people for jobs that were not there, jobs that no longer existed. In some regions of the country over 30 per cent of those enrolling in the training programs supported under the Adult Occupational Training Act were in surplus occupations. That engendered enormous frustration on the part of the people who enrolled in those programs. It simply meant that we were not making good use of the money that was being expended in large sums in an effort to help Canadians get these new skills.
The recommendation that we have received is to develop a program that will target our training dollars towards those occupations which are in demand, to put the money where the jobs will be, to ensure that at the end of the training program there will be employment. This legislation is the keystone of that recommendation.
We were also told, Mr. Speaker, that it was very important, before we went forward with legislation, to have very close and open consultation, so that not only would we take the recommendations of the task force but we would also have two federal-provincial conferences on the issue of training; that we would present a basic policy framework to provincial ministers, sharing in the responsibility, so that they would have the opportunity to react.
The national training program that we put forward last January contained the following elements. First, that we have to improve substantially the planning of manpower and labour market programs. We need much better information than we now have. Although we were in a modern technology society, we were flying blind in terms of assessing needs. We did some at the federal level and some at the provincial manpower commission level, some of the schools did some, but it was fragmentary; no one integrated the information.
We are proposing to develop what we call an occupational protective system. Under that system we will take the best information that can be gathered at the federal level, the
June 4, 1982

statistics that we have, and the kind of information we develop in terms of a national labour market, and combine and integrate that with the information obtained by provincial governments and manpower commissions and departments of colleges and universities. We would also integrate that with private industry information so that we can get a real assessment as to what industry requirements sector by sector will be.
To that end, over the past year we have been signing a number of employment agreements with different industrial sectors. We have signed agreements with the mining associations, with aerospace, with the graphics industry, with the foundries industry. We can begin to put in place a network of arrangements across the country with private industry so that we can share information, and when we have that information we can identify where the shortfall may be, where the problems may be and target our resources.
Therefore, one of the key elements in the new national training program is a national program of information development and planning, so that we have a clear ability-not perfect but certainly an improvement on what we have now- to plan where we want to go. And what about an information pool, a reservoir of information? We will be in a position to begin designating priority occupations in consultation with provincial governments and private industry. By priority occupations we do not mean just those that are in demand on the national level. We mean those which also have regional and local requirements. That means that we will be able to target our resources in training to those occupations where there is a need, so that our training programs will have a direct relationship to the job market. We need the authority to do that, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the key ingredients and elements in this bill. It will give us authority to begin providing those designated occupations so that federal dollars going into the training system will be allocated to wherever the demand may be.
We also recognize that if we are to make major changes in the training system, adjustments will have to be made, changes will have to be brought about. In particular, there will have to be a substantial modernization of training facilities. I have visited many of our community colleges and plants and factories. I found to my horror that sometimes people are training on equipment that is 30 or 40 years out of date. They simply do not have up-to-date facilities. They know that we are moving into a new era of information technology, yet many of our schools and training systems simply do not have a computer terminal.
Let me give an example from a visit I made a few weeks ago to the marine college on Prince Edward Island. One of the anomalies or paradoxes we face is that, in a growing industry on the east coast of Canada, the offshore oil and gas industry, we are having to recruit workers from offshore because there are not enough trained marine engineers or navigators to supply the needs of those industries. Yet we have a college, a good college, on Prince Edward Island that is training people for those occupations, but they are working on navigational machinery which was built during the Second World War. They say: "We need a new computer, a new simulator, and we
National Training Act
can turn out an additional hundred marine engineers a year to supply the industry". So for lack of one piece of equipment, we are denying a high-skilled, high-technology job to 100 Canadians per year.
At the same time we realize that there are enormous demands for expansion of training facilities. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) knows that in Toronto there was a report just last week that Seneca College has received over
15,000	applications from people for their high-technology training school and they have places for only 8,000. Seneca College now has applications in front of us and the provincial government of Ontario for expansion of that program.
This legislation authorizes the Government of Canada to go into a new program called the skills growth fund. It will provide direct grants to training centres and institutions across Canada for the expansion and modernization of facilities.


An hon. Member:: The provinces didn't do it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Whatever the reason, I am not going to lay the blame. I simply say that if we are going to bring about a new system of training we have to recognize that we will need a new curriculum, new courses. We will have to retrain many of our faculty members, provide new equipment and new facilities. Mr. Speaker, we have put $108 million this year on the line to be spent, and we could be spending it the very moment this legislation is passed. Those 15,000 applicants for Seneca College in Toronto could be going to school next fall if we get the legislation passed now. They could be in the new training classes. But we need the money to do it, and this is why we need to have this bill passed right away. We cannot pass it if we are not given authority by Members of Parliament to spend the money. It is not a matter of budget. We have increased the training budget by 15 per cent this year to over $1 billion, but under the laws of the land I cannot spend it unless I have the authority of Parliament. This is why we are here today, asking for authority to modernize substantially the system of training for all Canadians.
Equally important is the question of the kind of training. In this respect I should like to turn to some of the recommendations of the Allmand task force which we took into account. Not only should we be training in high technology jobs, as critical as that may be; we must begin to tackle the problem of the hard core unemployed, such as young persons, drop-outs and persons who do not get a chance and for reasons of lack of education or skills are always on the sidelines in the job market.
We have carefully analysed the problem of youth unemployment. Something close to 200,000 young people in the country are on what we call the margin of society. They are the people who drop out of school at grade seven or grade eight. They may obtain jobs for a couple of months washing dishes, but generally they are in and out of the job market. They are virtually the transients of the job market. We believe we can tackle that problem, come to grips with the structurally
18118

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
unemployed and give those people a chance through the introduction of training programs.
Up to this point in time, the Adult Occupational Training Act has provided major deterrents to doing this because of certain age requirements. This bill contains a fundamental change in the flexibility which we can offer to young Canadians, because we are changing the definition of who is eligible for training under the act. I draw the attention of hon. members to the definition of "adult" under the old act as someone who was one year beyond the school system. We are now defining an adult as any person which the school system says is of a school-leaving age. This means that we can now open up training to those who drop out of school at grades seven and eight.
The hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) has offered suggestions on more than one occasion that we must do this. This bill responds to that responsibility. I also draw this to the attention of hon. members from western Canada where there is a problem with high unemployment among native people. We know that something like 70 per cent of young natives leave school before graduation. Under this program we would be able to begin developing training programs for these people to provide them with new skills and opportunities to obtain jobs and, therefore, they could take advantage of the changes in the marketplace.
In addition, we are talking in this bill about recognizing the changing labour market by providing the ability to waive the requirement that training only be offered for 52 weeks. This is in recognition of the fact that many training programs, particularly in the high skills area, extend beyond the normal 52-week period. The bill authorizes my commission to waive that responsibility, and where training is to be provided beyond 52 weeks, we can again provide funding. Equally, we can now provide new funding for Canadians not only in traditional or conventional training centres but for those in new kinds of consortiums or arrangements put together by employers. Rather than agreeing to supply training for one employer, which we found tended to discriminate against the smaller business person with a small shop employing only 40 or 50 people which would not want to commence a program on their own, we are authorizing an arrangement whereby small employers can come together, either through a union or an employers' association, to initiate a joint training program. This means that one employer might provide training for machinists, another for heavy duty mechanics, and another for pipefitters, for example. This would mean that small factories in manufacturing areas would be able to become involved in a training consortium.
Also there is provision under the bill whereby we would provide direct training for certain special groups that want to provide training in new skills for people in society with special needs. This would be beneficial to organizations such as the Gabriel Dumont Centre in Saskatchewan which is operated by non-status natives who want to get into training programs which are related to their own needs. Under the program we
would be able to provide training assistance under the industrial training program for such people. It will substantially expand the flexibility of our training system to provide new kinds of training facilities, new polytechnics, new etudes, new centres and new institutes which were previously difficult to form under the national training program. We have broadened the range of training facilities.
Also the bill will enable the federal government to develop new financial arrangements with the provinces to eliminate much of the red tape and the administrative regulatory handicaps which were there before. For example, previously in the training system we would have purchased courses from a provincial institute. This required very detailed record keeping to ensure that the course was administered and that people attended the course, and the provinces had to submit their bills at the end of the year. Under this new arrangement we have the alternative of engaging in a flat rate formula with the provinces, so that we can eliminate red tape, provide for the purchase of courses and the sharing of administrative costs on a direct fee basis. This recommendation was strongly suggested to us by provincial governments.
We have attempted in this bill to respond to a number of concerns. I should like to talk for a moment about some of the ongoing misconceptions about these areas. First, let me talk about the grand, old perennial Canadian problem called "money". Members of Parliament have asked many times what commitment the government is making to future employment for Canadians. As 1 indicated, we are making a commitment this year of over $1 billion, which is well over a 15 per cent increase over last year. The money is allocated to our reserve to be spent the moment the bill is passed. We have made a commitment, and we can provide for the alternatives which many hon. members of the House have requested.
A second misconception concerns jurisdiction and the suggestions that at times there are problems relating to who will deliver the program or whether it is really an intrusion of the federal government into provincial jurisdiction. The fact of the matter is that we are again doing what hon. members have requested, that is, ensuring accountability for federal money which is spent to ensure that we will spend the money according to the needs and demands of the national marketplace, but not in any arbitrary or unilateral way.
The entire thesis of this bill and our training program is to consult with the provinces and private industry, to develop priority occupations based upon those consultations, to work jointly and to share responsibility, but still to maintain accountability at the federal level for the money we spend. We are not intruding; we are simply engaging in a more wholesome partnership where obviously as a federal government we must share responsibility with provincial institutions, the private sector and labour unions. Under this bill we will be able to begin to enact that kind of shared responsibility and to provide for a combination and a partnership in the training of Canadians. I hope hon. members will not be deluded by those tangential arguments which we often hear because people are


June 4, 1982

more interested at times in creating mischief, disruption and confrontation than in trying to create something which is positive and will work.
This legislation is not written in stone. It can go to committee, we are prepared to look at amendments there and to respond to the preoccupations of hon. members. We are also prepared to consider that this is simply a foundation or a base upon which we can then build the training program. We do not say that it has all the answers, but we are talking about the beginning of a new system. We see the need for substantial new retraining programs across the country which we can provide under the bill. We see the need for new co-op education programs so that we can provide much closer arrangements between industries and schools. We see the need for major changes in adult retraining so that when the adult population faces the need to change jobs or their occupation they can begin to develop programs either through the community college, their union or their employer. A new training act is necessary to bring that about. We need a new training act that is based upon the operation of basic principles that allow the federal government to operate through the medium of a national labour market and which would also ensure that we can target our resources and modernize the system. That is the purpose and direction of this bill.
I strongly recommend this legislation to members of the House. Again, I reiterate that it is my sincere hope that members will recognize how much responsibility we have on this Friday afternoon. Friday afternoon is not usually a time that is used to make great advances in Parliament. Most members find it convenient to return to their ridings on Friday afternoon. I would say, however, that we have an opportunity today to do something very important and significant for Canadians. By giving this bill second reading we will launch the means for the initiation of a new training plan for Canadians which will ensure them the opportunity to meet the future working world.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I am pleased to participate in this debate today. I would like to underline the minister's last comment. I also believe that this is not simply a minor event which is occurring during the longest session of Parliament's history. I have reviewed all the legislation which we have dealt with in the House, including the budget statement, the National Energy Program and the Constitution debate. If I had to choose a piece of legislation which will or ought to have a greater impact on Canadians in the next 20 years, it is this piece of legislation.
No member of the House should underestimate the significance of the bill which is before us. Its importance should not simply be considered for what it will achieve in the next year or two, but indeed in the next 20 years. After reading the bill and the available literature, and after engaging in discussions with people, I was astonished by how little most of the people
National Training Act
to whom I talked knew about the history of technical, technological and vocational education in this country and, indeed, the history of the federal government's role in these areas. I thought I might spend some time on that history for the benefit of those who have not had the opportunity to look at it.
I think it will be instructive not only to ourselves but also to the government and others who may be interested.
The principles in the bill which we are discussing today on second reading are not new. They are an extension of certain principles developed in the past but they are not of themselves new. It is perhaps a type of arrogance of any current generation which makes it believe that everything it does is brand new. That is why I think the historical record is instructive.
It comes as no surprise to anyone in the House that education was given to the provinces in 1867. Interestingly enough, it was within eight or ten years-by 1876-that the federal government took its first step into the field of education. What is equally interesting is that this first step occurred in the minister's home province of Manitoba where the federal government provided lands for the development of an institution which would one day become the University of Manitoba. In the same year the federal government began programs for training its own people under RCMP programs.
Almost as soon as confederation was achieved the federal government began to move into the field of education on demand in the sense that there needed to be some involvement from the central government which dealt with matters common to all Canadians.
I will not go through the complete history but there are certain watersheds in the historical development which can be instructive. It was not until 1980 that we decided in our Canadian way to do something about the fact that we had an embarrassment of riches which we discovered when we opened up the west. We found that we had a tremendous amount of natural resources. As the new technology of that age and the new economy at that time began to develop, we realized that there were shortages of skilled people and that there were no programs or funds available to train the young Canadians of the first decade of the twentieth century for future jobs. In 1910 we established a royal commission on industrial training and vocational education. One of the great unusual consequences of that royal commission was that it was one of those royal commissions that was effective. It was actually used and its recommendations were put into law.
Two acts which were spin-offs of that first big watershed in 1910 and flowed out of the recommendations of the royal commission were the agricultural assistance act and the agricultural instruction act. Those spawned the first animal husbandry courses and the first agricultural institutions in western Canada. The National Research Council was established in 1916 as a result of one of the recommendations.
In 1919 the bulwark for the next 20 years of technological education was established. It was the technical education act which lasted from 1919 to 1939. It provided to a generation and a half of Canadians the Financial and institutional base by which it coped with the technology of that generation.

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
In 1942 there was another watershed: the vocational training and co-ordination act was adopted. It was quickly adopted for two reasons; first, the old act had died; and second, we had a new reality in Canada, which was the war. We needed to train people for a host of new technologies coming into the world which were ushered in by the war. Therefore, the vocational training and vocational act of 1942 became the new federal base.
The Veterans Rehabilitation Act of 1945 was established to direct for the first time in any significant way funding by the federal government to students in technical, technological and vocational training.
In 1960 we began the phase which we are presently going through. The Technical and Vocational Training and Assistance Act was established by the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker. I mention this as a watershed along with 1910 and 1942. The 1960 act brought about a major change in the role of the federal government in technical and technological education. In fact, it provided vast quantities of funds for capital development in much the same way as the principle of the minister's bill. It established funds for technical and vocational high schools, not simply for people who were in the high school system but for technical and vocational high schools. This was done in the Atlantic provinces, western Canada and central Canada.
Those who benefited from technical and vocational education in those days were direct beneficiaries of a large infusion of funds, programs and schools as well as the training of teachers by the federal government. For those interested in the extent to which the federal government was involved in technical, technological and vocational training in Canada through the 1960 program, the fact is that the federal government in the short span of seven years established 688 new schools and renovated 440 of those schools from one end of the country to the other.
This brings us up to 1967. A new act called the Adult Occupational Training Act became the base for Canadian manpower training programs which we have enjoyed since that time. The purpose of that act in 1967 is worth quoting. This was an act "designed to contribute to the economic and social development of Canadians while reducing regional and individual disparities and providing employment related training".
Maybe everthing else old is new again and maybe there is nothing new under the sun. The point 1 am making in all of this historical development is that the federal government in Canada has been involved in a long history of training, over 70 years. It has provided billions of dollars, thousands of programs and trained millions of Canadians. Now, I emphasize that because I know there are people who are not aware that this is not a new reality. It is a new time and we have new technologies, but the federal government has always been, at least since 1910, and in my view ought to continue to be, one which plays a leading role in the development of funds, institutions, programs and teachers for technical, technological and vocational education.
That historical development also establishes, I think, certain Canadian ways in which we have gone about the federal role, and there are three principles that I think are worth mentioning. First of all, in 1910, from 1939 to 1942, in 1960 and in 1967, each time that the federal government took another step and participated in the development of technological and vocational education, it did so in relation to clearly understood national, industrial and economic strategies. National technical, technological and vocational training is not something that is stuck in the door all by itself. It is just not a sheaf of paper or a bunch of programs that have no connection with anything else. The motivation each time that this country has taken a leap forward in its economic programs and its industrial strategy has been the adoption of a national training program.
Now, it is important to emphasize that first principle. I wish the government well, but if it is to sell its program, not just to other governments but to the people of this country, then it will have to make its goals more clear than what we have heard so far in terms of national industrial strategies and national economic recovery programs. Because then people will understand the funds and the involvement in provincial policies which will also be required.
Indeed, as the minister himself indicated, we are going into a new world, as we did in 1910, as we did in 1942 and as we did in 1967. We are going into a new world where the speed of change is very great-a world of robots, a world of computers, a technological revolution. I guess that that type of technological revolution was just as scary at the turn of the century, in a sense, but it offered the same opportunities. One thing is clear with the current one. We now live in an integrated world economy where, unless we do have a national industrial strategy of economic recovery and a national training program which fits it, we will not become world competitive.
The second principle usually does not occupy the interest of parliamentarians at the federal level, but it is one worth pointing out because there are parts of the bill which will receive considerable scrutiny in committee, at least from me. It involves the way in which we balance education, in its broadest definition, and technical education. I will not spend much time on it today, but I wish to flag the problem within the bill. I think there is an idea that we must somehow move away from educational institutions, and that if there has been a bias in that direction, we must move away over to the other bias so that we have more and more exclusion of institution and more and more employer-based education.
As any educator would advise, there are a number of philosophies. There is one which suggests that the most important way in which to have technological and vocational education is to have it in the workplace. The extreme opposite is to have it only in the educational institutions. Indeed, we have veered from one to the other. Throughout the western world one will find countries which represent one philosophy more than the other.
What is required, and it certainly fits well in the Canadian mould, is a balance. There must be a balance between the

June 4, 1982

training of people for jobs and the training of people for life. There is no dichotomy in the individual's mind. There is always a dichotomy between levels of government and government bureaucracies. I heard what the minister pointed out in his speech. At least, I hope the minister said what I think I heard him say, because it is a good idea. When people work at whatever they do, they develop their own personalities. Their work tells them who and what they are and who and what they will become. Therefore, when we talk about training, it is wise to ensure that that training takes place within the context of an over-all educational program. I speak not only of philosophy here. If the federal government persists in the view, which I hope it does not, that it can split training from education and therefore split itself from provincial co-operation, it will not only cause a problem between governments, but will also mean that it has not done its work well in serving the people of Canada. It is absolutely essential that that second principle of balance between education and training, between institutions and the work place, be maintained.
I might say that a while ago I spent some time on this matter. For the minister's edification, he might want to speak to the chairman of his advisory committee on immigration, Mr. Tom Sosa, who is vice-president of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. I have a great love and affection for what I call the Ryerson model. It did not always do the job it was supposed to do, but its model was the best model. I commend it to the minister.
The problem for technological and technical education in the province of Ontario in the fifties and sixties was that the moneys went to the universities and there was nothing for that level of technical and technological education. Up until 1966, there was only one institute in the province of Ontario which carried out that level. That was Ryerson Polytechnical Institute or the old Ryerson Institute of Technology established in 1948. The principle behind the model was that one should link work to the job and link work to education so that it carried out an in-service program at the same time carried out a program within the educational institution. That model, I might say, was broken during the change in educational philosophy across the country in the 1960s. Previously Ryerson had to finance itself on the basis of running a very tight ship, ensuring that its graduates had jobs and that its departments were able to fund the students who were coming in. Cooperation between industry on the one hand and the high schools on the other was what made the Ryerson model work. I commend it to the minister.
The third principle is the principle which makes the other two possible. In my view, the first principle is that the government must make clear its national industrial and economic recovery goals in order to make sense out of a national program of technical education. Second, it must create that balance between the needs of education for individuals and the need for training. Third, it must establish co-operation between the levels of government.
National Training Act
With regard to the minister and, indeed, any minister, it is always easier if one does not have to try to talk to the people who will also be involved with you in the same business. It is simply easier to do it yourself.
I note that the hour is now one o'clock, Mr. Speaker; I would like to continue after the lunch hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, prior to the lunch break I had commenced my remarks by going through the historical development of technical, technological and vocational education. I had outlined the three significant principles that come from that historical development. In my view, these three principles have served us exceedingly well and will serve us in the future if the government pays attention to them.
The first principle is that any program of national training should be part of a national economic recovery as it was in 1910, 1942, 1960 and 1967. It is important that that principle be understood by the government. Second, the program must be an appropriate balance between the needs of so-called education for life and the needs of technical training, education specifically for the workplace, that a balance be maintained and that we not sacrifice one for the other as has so often been the case at other times and in other places. The third principle, the one I was dealing with when the hour struck one o'clock, is the principle of co-operation.
Throughout each of our watershed periods when the federal government has become involved in a significant way with respect to technical and technological education there has been the requisite, not easy to achieve, co-operation with the provinces. That in my view, particularly with this bill, is a very important principle. As it stands right now, the bill commits the government to consultation but does not commit it to agreement. I recognize some of the difficulties the minister may see, but when we do the questioning during committee stage and report stage, we will be able to develop an argument and the minister will see the value of agreement with the provinces.
To put it in the shortest possible way I can, if the government cannot find agreement with the provinces, we will have lost two things, with disharmony again being on us. First, we will have lost that intricate relationship between education and training. We would have the provincial governments dealing with education and the federal government dealing with training. We will have lost the necessary integration between the two. In short, we will have lost the second principle.
Also, we would have lost the opportunity to develop what is inherent in the principles of this bill, namely the best possible approach that a federal political system can take in terms of

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
the development of training in technical and technological education.
The third principle, that of co-operation between the two levels of government, is essential. Indeed, the other two principles which have served us so well will not be successful unless that co-operation is clear and obvious. The best way to do that is in connection with agreements so that the individual is served by both levels of government rather than having them at war one with the other.
In his speech the other day to the presidents of community colleges from across the country, the minister said at the bottom of page 8 of his speech: "We will invest in new facilities, equipment, curriculum and build the kinds of institutions needed to train Canadians in new skills for new jobs". I support that. I think all Canadians support that. What is important is the definition of "we". "We" should not be the federal government and should not even be the federal Parliament. If it is to be successful, "we" means the federal level, the provincial level, private institutions and those involved in the delivery of education. "We" means all of those who deliver the service, and it also means those who receive that service. It is on the definition of "we" that I think the success or failure of the minister's bill will be determined.
This brings me finally to the specifics of the legislation now before us. As I think I probably have been able to demonstrate, this bill in 1982 is serving the same need Canadians had in 1910, in 1942, in 1960 and again in 1967. We have a system today that has many problems, and I suppose as too often Canadians try to do, we try to point the finger at who caused the problems. Who is to blame? The fact is we are all to blame. The federal government is to blame.
The minister says we have been pouring millions of dollars into training programs for which there are no jobs. Most of those millions of dollars have come from the federal government. The federal government had the opportunity for approval of those programs and, indeed, as the task force on work in the eighties pointed out, the minister's own department wasted-I think that was the word used-millions of dollars training people for no jobs. There clearly is a responsibility at the federal level. The provincial governments have their share too.
The glories of an educational institution being run like a grand corporation caught the imagination of too many people involved in education in the sixties and seventies, and far more money was spent on administrative and on non-teaching and non-learning aspects of technical, technological and vocational education than needed to be. The provinces too often looked for the glory and less for the delivery of the service. However, we as parents were also responsible. Particularly in this field we have for too long-for the last 30 years-assumed that somehow if we were involved in technical, technological or vocational work, that was not quite up to snuff in relation to what people ought to be. We put far too much emphasis on grants to universities and too little on the importance of doing the good, honest work required. We lost the sense of having
pride in good labour done. We lost that in the last generation and a half, and I am hoping one of the things which will come out of this bill will be a recapturing of the understanding of the contribution that technical, technological and vocational jobs make, not just to the economy of the country but, indeed, to society as a whole. Who we blame is not important to the future. I think we are all to blame. The fact is we now have a technical, technological and vocational system that is not serving us.
The specifics of the bill are four in number. First, the minister argues as a question of principle at second reading of the bill that we have to have the identification of priority occupations, and those ought to be the major business of the federal government. I agree with that. That was clearly the principle in 1960. It was also clearly the principle in 1967, in 1942 and in 1910. That is the principle now. It is a good principle. The federal government should be concerned about those priority occupations which will allow us to deal with the technical and technological revolution that is already upon us. Indeed, we should have been concerned about it eight or ten years ago.
Second, the bill argues for a greater opportunity to have employers and non-educational institutions involved in the delivery of technical, technological and vocational training outside institutions. I support that too. I think there are lots of opportunities to use the facilities of those non-educational institutions. To give an example, what is the best marketing school in Canada? Some people might think it is the University of Western Ontario. I think most people would understand it is Procter and Gamble-sorry to Lever Brothers! There is great value in training in the workplace, but not at the cost of education in the institution. The principle is good. We are going to have to wait until the regulations and the agreements show whether that balance between education and training is maintained.
Third, the bill talks about the necessity for projecting employment needs and offers what is known in the trade as COPS, the Canada occupational projection system. It is a computer-based system which allows for some understanding of what we are going to need in the future. I think the minister would admit that it is not terrific, but it is all we have at this point.
What I would like to suggest to the minister, and will be suggesting in the committee, is that he pick up on a suggestion which has been made to him on a number of occasions. He could refine it to his own use, but it is a suggestion with respect to participation by the Canadian Labour Congress and the Business Council on National Issues. It is not very often both labour and management get together with a proposal. They have made a proposal to the minister. It seems to me that even if the specifics of that proposal are not sufficient for the minister and if he would like to use COPS in connection with it, I think the Business Council on National Issues and the Canadian Labour Congress would be happy to listen to some proposals from the minister so that they could participate in labour market projections. We should not simply write labour
June 4, 1982

market projections off as a theoretical system. Being able to project what we will need in terms of skilled talent is a very, very important matter. Otherwise, our ability to be able to organize resources in time and, indeed to be able even to lead the market for a change, would be lost.
Finally, the bill would spend more money both in terms of capital costs and in terms of funds for individuals. Indeed, one measure that I think is excellent would increase benefits to individuals from 60 per cent to 70 per cent and would therefore give people the incentive to get involved in the training programs proposed in the bill.
I can conclude my remarks by saying two things. As I have tried to indicate, this bill has a noble tradition. It is a tradition not known to very many Canadians, but it is a tradition which has served us well, and it has served us well because we have observed those three principles. I implore the minister to pay attention to those principles: national training should be related to national economic recovery; national training should have a balance between the needs of education and the needs of the workplace; and national training should be done within the atmosphere and framework of co-operation and the search for agreement between the two levels of government. If the government does that, I think the name Axworthy will be right up there with the names of those people who piloted the bills through in 1910, in 1942, 1960 and 1967, and that will be well deserved.
However, if the minister fails to pay attention to those principles, he will not only have failed, but we also will have lost the one opportunity we have to become competitive in the world and to be on the road to recovery for the next 20 years.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment line, the soup kitchen, children attending Salvation Army services not just for spiritual sustenance but for food, are all realities in Canada today. Canadians are in deep trouble. Unemployment is at its highest level since the depression. We are spending some $1 billion on training while skilled jobs go begging. Yet in spite of this situation, things could be different if we had the political will to make them different.
I would like to take a few minutes to describe to hon. members the kind of situation we find ourselves in in Canada today. We have an intolerable level of unemployment. In real terms the number of unemployed is some two million, yet at this time of record levels of unemployment we still have shortages of skilled workers. There are jobs for skilled workers that are not filled by Canadians. This situation is not temporary, although sometimes the government would like us to believe that it is. All the predictions made by economic forecasters lead us to believe that any recovery will be slow and that we are not going to return to the kind of economic growth that we once knew. Put simply, we are facing an economy in which a large number of people are unemployed, bankruptcies have increased, inflation continues to soar and, in the last few days, we have seen the failure of the Canadian dollar. That is a clear indication of a failing economy.
National Training Act
It is not enough to recognize the over-all economic problems that we face, Mr. Speaker. There are other and more particular problems with employment and training. There are some very grave inequities in the way people are able to earn income. Some are able to make a pretty good living while others are not. I am thinking of groups normally designated as disadvantaged-women, natives, the handicapped and even immigrants.
I should like to say something about the employment of women. We all know that on average women earn something in the order of 60 per cent of the income that men earn. By and large they work in what are known as job ghettos. The technological changes of the future are a threat to the low paying jobs that women presently occupy. The microchip revolution will deskill a lot of jobs so that the work women presently do will require less skill and, as a result, they will lose earning power. There are other jobs that will become more highly skilled, of course, but it will be more difficult for women in the future to climb the ladder of their careers than it has in the past.
Most Canadians are aware that the vast majority of native people have neither the education nor the equality of opportunity that is necessary to be successful in the working world and to earn a decent income. They have been in this position for a long time, of course, but that is no justification for the situation continuing.
Handicapped people are also disadvantaged in the economy and in the job market. Very real barriers exist for handicapped people, not only in the physical sense of access to buildings where they might work and participate in community activities, but also in terms of attitude. We have not really learned to accept the handicapped person as someone with full rights of citizenship and the full right to earn a decent living.
Many immigrants were attracted to this country by the promise of prosperity, but recently some lured here to work in the garment industry, for example, have been disappointed. Rather than steady employment and a good income they have been faced with lay-offs, part-time employment and shattered dreams. Many of them work for less than the minimum wage and many are underemployed. I can think of a Philippino man who was trained and qualified as an engineer in his own country but found when he came to Canada that he could not use his skills and had to work as a draftsman. There are some people who feel that he may not have had the same standard of training as a Canadian engineer, but I would remind hon. members that the educational system in the Philippines was established by the United States and that the same training manuals are used there as are used in Canada. In fact, in Canada and in the Philippines, the education of engineers is modelled on the United States system, so there is no reason for the inequity that continues to exist.
The labour market not only demonstrates the inequitable and intolerable state of employment among disadvantaged groups but there is also a great deal of waste. There is waste of the great human potential that exists in this country. The

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
hopes, dreams and futures of our young people are being laid to waste. Our record high level of unemployment has reached almost two million in real terms and about half that number are young people. They are losing the opportunity to gain the training and experience which are necessary for them to work their way up in the job market. Not only are their hopes and dreams shattered by the present economic mess and lack of training, but there is another shocking problem that should not exist in any industrialized western democracy. The task force report entitled "Work for Tomorrow-Employment Opportunities for the '80s" identified the extent of functional illiteracy in this country. A very significant portion of our population does not have the basic education necessary to make a living in an industrialized society. There is a waste of human potential and a waste of economic potential as a result. If those people were given an opportunity to be functionally literate, they would be an asset to our society and to our economy.
All these problems-record high unemployment, inequities in the labour market, the waste of human potential-exist in a country that has very real and great potential, a country that has an educated population and great resources. A country like ours should not put up with these kinds of problems.
How has the government responded to the situation we face today? Its response has been disappointing, to say the least. It has been what I would describe as a public relations response. This bill, C-115, the legislative authority for the national training program, does not tell us a great deal about that program. It does not tell us what the government intends to do. In order to find out something about that, we have to go to the press releases issued by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I am looking at one now dated May 21, 1982 in which he described the so-called new national training program. But it does not tell us a heck of a lot about what the program is going to look like either. It is a well-crafted document which certainly touches on all the key points. It mentions native people, handicapped people, women, and it mentions there will be new initiatives. But it does not tell us a heck of a lot about how they are going to do these things. It tells us they are going to train native people and others for national occupations, but no substance, no detail and no specifics. That is what I mean when I say it is a public relations response; it makes for good press releases and good speeches, but it has no substance.
I do not want you, Mr. Speaker, to accept my comments on the basis of my assertions alone. I would like to examine a few of the things mentioned in this national training program. The first thing I want to comment on is the approach to forecasting the kinds of jobs for which people will have to be trained. The proposed forecasting system is called the Canadian occupations projection system, or COPS for short. It is a macroeconomic system which involves consultation with various groups in society. It is a system devised by the same institution, the federal government, which has failed so dismally in the past in its predictions for job needs and training. But the real problem with the system is that it offers no real way of obtaining access to information about private sector investment intentions. Just
where do corporations intend to invest in the future and, therefore, what kinds of jobs will result and what kind of training do we have to put in place?
Of course, it is quite natural that a corporation would want to keep its investment decisions confidential because of competitive factors. You cannot just make this information available willy-nilly because your competitors will take advantage of it. Yet we must find a way if we are to be able in any way to forecast the kinds of jobs which will exist in the future.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, having a macroeconomic prediction model, or even consulting with other groups about what they want, is no substitute for an industrial strategy. An industrial strategy should involve public participation in the determination of investment decisions in this country over the coming years. In other words, where are we going to put our dollars, what kind of industry are we going to develop, and therefore what kind of labour market are we going to have? Without a well-thought-out industrial plan, without some public involvement in the direction of investment, we have really no way of knowing just what the economy is going to look like in the future.
I would like to move on to another aspect of this so-called national training program. I say so-called because it really is not all that it purports to be. There is a section in this bill dealing with industrial training, the essence of which is that it will provide incentive funds to industry to train workers on the job or in other settings. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not new. A system based on incentives has been in place in this country now for quite some time. It is also a system which has led us to our present circumstances of extremely high unemployment and jobs which lack skilled workers. As a part of this system of training incentives there has been an effort to move funding away from community colleges which, of course, come under provincial jurisdiction. It looks like there will be a reduction of 10 per cent in funding to community colleges. I say that based on the fact that the guarantee being given to provincial governments and community colleges is that their funding will not fall below 90 per cent of what it was before. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that guarantee will become the ceiling. In effect, you will have community colleges, the basic instrument we have for training people, facing a reduction in funding. This comes at a time when there is no way they can afford to do with less.
Another aspect of this training policy, Mr. Speaker, is what is called national occupations. The federal government, by legislation, is going to take upon itself the authority to designate certain occupations as national occupations. It is going to say: okay, this is an occupation in which we need trained people and this is where we are going to put our money.
What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? The problem is that you have the same old department making the decision about where to put the money. They have dressed it up a bit by putting it in legislation and calling it a "national occupation", but if you still have the same employment department making decisions about where our dollars are going, our experience to date with regard to how successful that department has been in
June 4, 1982

terms of putting the money in the right place to produce the required trained workers leaves us with very little confidence that anything really constructive will come out of this legislative designation of national occupations.
This bill leaves the federal government in a neat little position of being able to respond to public pressure from time to time. For example, if we became aware suddenly of a great shortage of machinists, although it might be a little too late, if it became a public issue and a political issue, it would not be a hard task for the government to add that activity to the designated list of national occupations and tell the people that the government is doing something. The problem would be, of course, that it would be far too late.
This national training program claims that it will give women, natives and disabled people better access to training. That is on page 4 of the backgrounder, the federal proposals, the press release that I mentioned. That one line does not mean much. It is nice to know that the federal government intends to give natives, for example, better access to training. The government said the same thing in the last federal budget with regard to economic development. They had a line there that said there would be some $350 million for native economic development. Native leaders have called me and asked where that money is. They say they know it was in the budget, that they have been trying to find out from the government about it and they ask what they intend to do with it, how they intent to spend it, what shape the program will be that will be so financed. They cannot find out; they are worried that one day they will wake up and find the program has been laid down and they will have to live with it, regardless of the content or structure of the programs and without their really having any say about what the program should be. The same thing applies here. There is talk about giving natives better access to training. It would have been far better to get the native leadership involved in the development of that program before it was announced.
The government also claims that there will be better access to training for women. With the technological change going on in our society, with the microchip revolution, with the gaps in the career ladder that this is going to cause for women, it will be even more difficult than today for them to advance and reach a level of economic equality with men.
Women want not just a one-line mention in a press release. They want some real guarantees that they will have access to the highly skilled occupations that will be created by technological change. They want a real guarantee that they will get first crack at those jobs. They want to know that adequate and worth-while training will be provided so that they can move from low level occupations into the new highly skilled occupations, and therefore be able to jump the gap in the career ladder that is created by technological change.
Another aspect of this program is the skills growth fund. This is the fund of $108 million for facilities and equipment, to help in the updating of the training equipment available in institutions across the country. We do not know much about
National Training Act
that item from this press release. I wonder how far $108 million will go in this great big land.


An hon. Member:: A drop in the bucket.


Cyril Keeper: We have ten provinces, and if you divide that sum equally it may mean only $10.8 million for each province.
It is not a great deal when you consider the expense of bringing facilities up to modern technological standards.
Over all, Mr. Speaker, this program touches all the right bases in terms of identifying the issues, but when you take a closer look at it and try to find out the specifics and what it means, it is like punching a pillow; you really cannot get at it. We do not have adequate information and we are not told what is really being intended. That is not an adequate response to the situation we are facing today of high unemployment, lack of skilled workers and inequities in the labour market. That is an inadequate response.
Some might believe that is the best that can be done. I think a lot more could be done, Mr. Speaker. We could find really concrete ways of working with the very difficult problems we face. We do not have to be superficial in our approach. We do not have to accept the manpower department programs as they have always been. We can have a positive impact upon the type of training that is to take place in this country. We could have a comprehensive training system that would meet the needs of our economy for the future and provide Canadians with real opportunities to train for interesting and exciting jobs in the future.
Let me give some examples, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate what I have been saying, that it is possible to do better than what is proposed in this national training program. Going back to the question of the economy and jobs, what this country needs now, and needs badly, is an industrial strategy. It needs a plan to create manufacturing jobs throughout the country, not jobs in one region but jobs in all regions. It is obvious to everyone that the economic strategy this government has been following, based upon resource export, has really failed. That is literally demonstrated with the failure of the megaprojects in recent times. We need a plan for developing our industrial economy. We need a plan for investment in manufacturing, so that there will be jobs for which Canadians can be trained and to which people can look forward.
With regard to projecting what kind of positions people will need to be trained for, as my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned, there was a joint submission from the Canadian Labour Congress and the Business Council on National Issues, a proposal for a labour market institute. This offers at least one real and concrete way of adding to the information that we have and will allow us to make better predictions about the jobs for which we need to train people. It offers an institutional setting in which researchers could talk to businessmen to find out something about their investment decisions without making the information generally available to the public. Therefore, this information about their investment decisions could be the basis for the kinds of prediction

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
the institution would make about training needs for the future. It would be a real way of bolstering, making more accurate, and placing a more solid data base under the projection system we use for making decisions concerning the jobs for which we are training people.
With regard to the system that we use to train people for predicted jobs, we need an industrial training system which is comprehensive, in the sense that it encourages and demands that all employers become involved in training. One of the main problems with training in the country today is that a very small percentage of employers train people for skilled jobs. Of course, those employers can be raided by other employers of those skilled workers once they have made an investment in them.
We must devise a system which makes it mandatory for all employers in the country to train and to contribute to the cost of training. This would be a way of ensuring that employers train and that there are skilled workers to fill the jobs of the future. Such a comprehensive industrial training system would view training as an investment. We would not have to rely only upon skilled immigrants, we would be training people who are in Canada to fill those skilled jobs.
Turning to the disadvantaged-and I will briefly mention native people-over the last few years there has been demonstrated success with what are called new careers programs. These programs may last several years in length of training. They take people with very low levels of education and train them for professional occupations, such as teachers, lawyers and doctors, over four or five years, and this results in a real difference in the income levels of these people. There is no mention of this in the national training program, but such a commitment would mean a real difference in the program. There is no mention of or commitment to a new career training strategy. If that is to be the intention, it should be spelled out.
With regard to women, we need a real assurance or some guarantee from the government that women who are displaced in the workplace as a result of technological change will have first crack at the jobs which come up, and that they will have adequate training in order to be ready and available for them.
In regard to the handicapped, a very good study was conducted by the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped entitled "Obstacles". A solid commitment should be spelled out to the very good recommendations in this report with regard to employment for the handicapped.
The problem of functional illiteracy was mentioned in another parliamentary report on manpower. It is a very severe problem in this country that saps the wealth of the nation. Why do we not have a war on functional illiteracy in this country? Is it not time that all Canadians should have an adequate education, at least an education which allows them to enter the labour market? There are many ways of approaching the difficult problems we face. I encourage the government to
look harder at the possibility of implementing some of these approaches to training and employment problems in the country.
In conclusion, unemployment in Canada is the highest it has been since the depression of the 1930s. When a real recovery begins-and there is no evidence of it yet occurring-it looks as though it will be very slow. The market is begging for skilled workers, yet we continue to spend billions of dollars on training in a haphazard manner. Canadians could be doing the work which we all know needs to be done. Canadian factories could be producing a cornucopia of wealth. Women, natives, handicapped persons, immigrants, youths and all Canadians could be trained for skilled jobs. To paraphrase a former practitioner of our trade, politics, the art of the possible, some people see things as they are and ask why; I dream not the impossible dream but of real things yet to be, and ask why not?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to express my support for Bill C-115, an Act to establish a national program for occupational training, because I am convinced that this legislation will make a major contribution toward adjusting our training system in Canada to the demands of the electronic age. I must admit that I would have preferred to take part in a debate in more cheerful circumstances. I would have preferred to praise our accomplishments across Canada, our abundant wealth and our very advantageous economic situation. Unfortunately, the situation is quite different, not to say alarming. Mr. Speaker, I have decided to take part in this debate for two reasons. First of all, because the unemployment rate in Canada, although it is impossible to give the exact figures, has reached a record high, and although we can say that all industrialized countries are faced with this kind of problem, I do not think we can draw any consolation from a comparison with other countries, although on the other hand, such a comparison does oblige us to be more realistic and to recognize that Canada, notwithstanding its constant and renewed efforts, will never be able to insulate itself from other countries and their problems, just as they do not insulate themselves from the prosperity enjoyed by industrialized countries.
My second reason, Mr. Speaker, is that I have had the honour and the privilege of sitting on a seven-member task force, one member of which, I am sad to say, is no longer with us, and here, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our colleague Bruce Lonsdale, who passed away several months ago, and who made a major contribution to the work of our committee. The task force, Mr. Speaker, was fortunate in being able to travel across Canada and to find out for itself, during often very spirited discussions with the public, about the real problems of unemployment and solutions that could be considered. The committee, on which I acted as cochairman with the member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), submitted 186 recommendations. The Minister of Employment
June 4, 1982

and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has accepted several of these recommendations, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him and to ask him to continue implementing of the basic recommendations of this report on employment opportunities for the '80s.
Mr. Speaker, although there are continuing regional and sectorial manpower shortages, Canadians are experiencing the highest unemployment levels in 40 years. Although this unusual situation is very cold comfort for those who are unemployed, it does point to a number of shortcomings in Canada's manpower policy and leads us to expect that our problems will soon get worse. Until now, Canada has been unable to meet the demand for skilled workers in the traditional trades and it has been unable to adjust to the needs of a developing economy. Until the middle of the seventies, most of our requirements for skilled manpower were filled by immigrant workers from abroad. However, a rise in the standard of living in the European emigration countries led to a serious drop in the number of immigrants. The resulting decline in the numbers of skilled manpower has given us an economy that is plagued by inflation while at the same time not being able to provide enough jobs for less skilled workers. This situation has been aggravated by a recession that is both national and international. Unskilled workers are the last to be hired and the first to be fired.
Businesses can no longer operate at full capacity are being restructured and that, as a result, less skilled workers and those with the least seniority are being laid off first. This has led to a decline in the number of on-the-job training programs and thus in the number of opportunities for workers to gain experience. Consequently, today's recession is contributing to tomorrow's shortage of skilled workers. In extreme cases, recessionary pressures are weakening the economy's structures to the point where businesses that could be productive are going bankrupt. Our manpower policy must cope with these problems, first of all, by restructuring Canadian industry so as to facilitate adjustment of the labour market to new demands. Subsequently, workers already on the labour market must be trained or retrained for the trades that are necessary to a proper functioning of the economy. Finally, jobs must be structured to take account of the specific needs of workers. For instance, allowances must be made for the particular needs of the increasing number of women who are carrying a twofold responsibility for work in the home and in the labour force.
In addition to the recurring weaknesses of our manpower policy in these areas, Canada's decision-makers will be confronted with further major problems during this decade. The ongoing trend toward opening up occupations and the wave of investment for the purpose of integrating new technology should lead us to expect important changes in the sectorial and occupational balance of regions where there is a manpower demand. If Canada is unable to respond to the new demand for
National Training Act
skilled manpower, it may be prevented from upgrading its production potential and jobs will literally have to be exported. The arrival of fewer young workers on the labour market means on the one hand that the economy will not have to absorb a large number of workers with more experience as was the case during the last decade. On the other hand, as the average age of the workers increases, adjustment to the new requirements will have to depend to a greater extent on the retraining of those who are already part of the labour force. Finally, the women's rate of participation is expected to go on increasing while the service sector, which has been the traditional source of female employment, will probably be the most affected by the technological changes, and especially by the microelectronics revolution.
The two basic questions concerning training are how and where it is given and who pays for it. How do we achieve a balance between experience and on-the-job training on the one hand and academic training on the other ? A changing economy needs a labour force that not only is specialized, but that also has transferable specializations. Obviously it is easier to learn some of the trades on the job and a different approach is needed for others. The lack of basic training is restricting many Canadians to unskilled jobs and is virtually excluding them from training and retraining programs. Over four million Canadians are functionally illiterate. On-the-job experience cannot teach them to read or write any better or to improve their marginal situation in relation to the labour force as a whole. On the other hand, to the extent that training is transferable, each employer is tempted to attract specialized workers away from other employers since he can then benefit from these workers without any cost to him. It is because of this market deficiency that the government has had to subsidize training facilities through its tax revenues. However, these programs which range from university and college courses to manpower training programs have too often ignored the requirements of the labour market.
On a national level, there is a shortage of engineers and a surplus of arts graduates. Regional manpower programs have trained workers for jobs that require little specialization in areas affected by chronic unemployment. Financing must be more selective and the programs better co-ordinated. In addition, people often say that a given training program does not meet the specific needs of the industry. Attempts to reduce work situations reproduced in laboratories and workshops have proven costly and outdated and they have shown that our teaching institutions do not have the required resources at their disposal. Universities have had to deal with both basic training and fundamental research. We shall need a much broader spectrum of on-the-job training programs to match theory with practice.
While off-the-job training has sometimes been inadequate, the very serious shortage of specialized workers in the fields that traditionally require an apprenticeship period point to the

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
obvious failure of this procedure in Canada as compared with students trained in teaching institutions. Apprentices are often laid off during a recession. Besides, apprenticeship programs are often spread out over conventional four-year periods without any consideration for the actual requirements of the trade. The government has already implemented various industrial training subsidization programs, but we obviously have to do more. Already the fundamental question of who should pay for this training and who should distribute the funds is being asked.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, when I was travelling across Canada and consulting with the people, the most frequent comments we heard were the following: young people realize they are trained in skills where there is absolutely no prospect of short, medium, or long-term employment. They complained all across Canada that they were insufficiently and inadequately counselled; in that regard, this legislation fulfils that requirement in part. Another comment we heard was that often young people do receive theoretical education but no adequate practical training, which prevents them from filling jobs within a reasonable time-frame. Those two basic complaints were heard over and over and over again, Mr. Speaker. There are, in my opinion, five training principles that should be adhered to and closely examined. First, more specialized training should be provided in Canada. Second, more on-the-job training should be provided. Third, a greater number of Canadians should be attracted to highly skilled trades. This is one of the major objectives of the legislation now before us. Four, ongoing education, retraining and upgrading should be provided in order to meet the increasing demand for new technology and the changing concept of competition on the world markets. Five, fair and equitable funding should be studied in depth.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on those training aspects, and say a few words on in-plant training. During our travels, we often heard that in the area of training it was essential to give higher priority to on-the-job training in order to meet industry's current needs. The Canadian government will spend $166 million in 1982-83 to help employers provide training that is often costly and time-consuming. Employers who wish to train workers or upgrade training in trades such as tool-making, welding, industrial maintenance mechanics, electronics and engineering technicians, oil production and other first-class trades will be given priority in the allotment of federal funds. The current critical trade skills training program will be integrated within the industrial training program, and CTST training will be improved. Such initiatives are aimed at helping the industry set up the structures needed to train each year 10,000 highly skilled workers by 1984-85.
In addition to training workers in the critical trades, the industrial training program will stress training in the trades
where job demand is high, the retraining of workers affected by technological and industrial changes, the training of the unemployed, the training of women in fields where jobs are usually held by men, and the training of adults with specific needs. This scheme strikes me as very interesting and encouraging, Mr. Speaker, and I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to pursue his efforts in that direction.
With regard to institutional training, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to make a few comments. As we pointed out in our report on employment opportunities, institutional training should complement in-plant training by giving higher priority to the critical trades, that is those where a shortage of skilled labour exists. I believe the minister got the message. The number of skilled workers can be increased not only by extending the traditional apprenticeship training but also by giving some training prior to the apprenticeship stage provided by provincial educational institutions. That is why the federal government is willing to finance a major expansion of preapprenticeship training in the critical trades, provided the provincial governments agree to include that training in their apprenticeship programs, and provided there is a real demand in the industry for that type of trainees. The federal government will also buy more pre-job training courses, because requirements having been increased in such trades as computer programming, industrial design and word processing. Thus, training prior to apprenticeship and employment will be available, which it is not at the present time, enabling one to acquire skills to a higher or a lesser degree. Simultaneously, the federal government will progressively abandon its purchases of non-productive courses or reduce them according to the actual needs of the economy. The funds the government intends to inject into training will also go to the training in school of apprentices in the Red Seal jobs and other trades where demand in high.
Mr. Speaker, I said that a fifth important aspect of training that bears scrutiny is that of financing. I should like to repeat Recommendation 40 of our task force report on employment opportunities which suggested the following solution to the government, and I quote:
40. To help finance industrial training, the government should establish a refundable tax on salaries, wages and other remuneration (a payroll tax-credit system), in the following manner:
(a)	A payroll tax should be applied to employers, equal to a designated percentage (perhaps 0.5%) of their payroll.
(b)	Any amount of money up to the designated percentage of payroll spent on training approved by existing training authorities, or training leading to a degree from a recognized education or training institution, should be credited against the payroll tax.
Mr. Speaker, that is a suggestion we have made, which the minister has not yet implemented but to which he has certainly given consideration, for it is a significant part of what I feel is the answer to the problem of training funding.
June 4, 1982

We need the National Training Act that is now before us to upgrade our training system, in order to better respond to the challenge of technological change. To be able to fill the positions of tomorrow, Canadians must have the opportunity to take updated training courses using modern equipment, and that is specifically the purpose of the National Training Act. This bill will authorize the setting up of the skills growth fund, the easing of requirements that have limited in the past our capacity to train specialized workers, as well as the introduction of incentives to retrain workers. All these elements are prior conditions to the upgrading of our training system. This upgrading is urgently needed because technological developments are rapidly changing our daily lives.
For instance, our letters are typed on word processors. Surgeons use laser beams for microsurgery and our children do not simply attend ordinary day camps any more, but computer camps. Moreover, most job opportunities available nowadays are for men and women familiar with digital components, micro-processors, optical fibers and computers. Our capacity to adapt to these changes will have a strong impact on Canada's economic growth, productivity and trade balance. On a more personal level, we are offering every Canadian the possibility of stimulating and rewarding professions.
Pessimists fear that the technological revolution will open the door to massive unemployment. In West Germany, for instance, some foresee that office work will soon be 40 per cent automated, which will cause millions of office workers to lose their jobs. According to a Canada Council report, if we delay promoting the development of technologies in the areas of micro-processors and telecommunications, we will lag behind more advanced nations for quite a long time. A great many operations in the manufacturing industry would become obsolete overnight. Our trade balance, already precarious, might never recover. Structural unemployment could result in permanent unemployment for many Canadians, a lowering of our standard of living and possibly compel some to emigrate. That is what the Canada Council is saying will happen unless we make all-encompassing changes. Although the Canada Council has elected to paint such a grim picture of the negative consequences the technological revolution may entail, Canadians are nevertheless aware of the urgent need to make changes now. We must promote technological innovations by providing funds for research and development and devising the most modern and efficient training system. As an optimist, I feel that the technological revolution is offering us a unique opportunity to make the best possible use of our most precious assets, which are our human resources, increase productivity and create new jobs. In the area of computer graphics for instance, computer assisted design and manufacturing might make incredible increases in productivity possible, if we put the available technology to work. This new technology will liberate workers from tedious and repetitive jobs. They will be able to control the quality of their own work. Moreover, the kinds of jobs created through the practical application of
National Training Act
advanced technology, if we approach them the right way, may be rid of the obstacles and prejudices that are at the present time hindering professional groups.
By shifting the emphasis toward trades in great demand, the new training legislation will make it possible to increase retraining opportunities. Women who hold most clerical jobs in offices and in the service sector will be disproportionately affected by the advent of new technology and we must see to it that they are given the opportunity to upgrade their skills or, if they prefer, switch to fields which so far have been the preserve of men. These past few years, Canadians have gained international recognition in the field of technological innovation. For instance, the Telidon system developed by Canada's Department of Communications is now being widely acknowledged as the world's leading videotex/teletex technology. In addition, our reputation has been greatly enhanced in international quarters with the unveiling of the space shuttle remote-controlled manipulator arm made in Canada. The National Training Act will help us benefit from such achievements. It will enable us to ensure that we have modern and efficient training facilities to train the number of workers needed by industry. It will also make it easier to alleviate some of our strict and restrictive requirements and to offer better incentives for retraining workers left behind by the industrial revolution.
The legislation introduced by the minister will pave the way toward faster economic growth and a better employment outlook for Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill should be adopted soon, before the end of the session. This legislation will give us the legislative authority to go ahead with major initiatives such as the skills growth fund. This fund is of vital importance if we seriously aim at training enough highly skilled workers to meet the needs of our economy, but the money will not be available unless the National Training Act does become law. Without that authority, we cannot earmark funds to build or expand a single training institution, no matter how urgently it may be needed. As it is, the institutions we do have fall far short of training all the skilled labour at the rate required by the industry. Unless we greatly speed up the rate of expansion, we can expect severe shortages of about 9,000 skilled workers a year over the next five years. Capital expenditures of that magnitude call for huge investments. The provinces are busy setting up programs that will require investments of many million dollars. For its part, the federal cabinet has set aside a 3108-million fund for that purpose for the current and next fiscal years, but those funds are frozen until the bill is passed.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to the basic aspects of this legislative measure, first and foremost the skills growth fund. Manpower sources and the existing training institutions will not turn out enough expert technicians and tradesmen to meet the demand in the eighties. With a view to

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
promoting manpower training in high priority jobs, the federal government will establish under the new act the skills growth fund, in co-operation with the provinces, so as to expand or upgrade our technical training equipment and facilities. The provinces, the industries or non-profit organizations could be asked to administer the institutions. They would also be responsible for training designated groups such as native people in skills in great demand.
Second, the legislation will broaden the range of training courses provided as well as the classes of workers eligible to take those courses. It will provide a list of priority skills and the variety of courses available in those fields. Under the new legislation, higher allowances may be paid to laid-off workers in designated industries and areas, under the special industry and labour adjustment program, who decide to retrain in order to acquire skills in great demand when a high rate of vacancy is not expected in their former occupation. The allowances paid would increase insurable earnings or unemployment insurance benefits from 60 to 70 per cent or if the benefits have expired, additional benefits would be paid if the workers are enrolled in retraining programs.
Third, the bill will provide higher financial allowances in order to encourage laid-off apprentices to acquire skills in trades where there is a shortage of manpower and workers to retrain in fields where technological change has caused their lay-offs but where jobs are still available. Additional special allowances would be paid to laid-off apprentices attending critical trade skills training courses. The additional payments would be added to other forms of income support.
Fourth, the bill will remove the present requirement that adults have completed their studies 12 months before enrolling for training courses to enable young drop-outs to attend those courses that are essential to them. As for skilled workers, the new legislation will authorize the Employment Commission to remove the present requirement under which a trainee must wait a year before enrolling in a training institution. In some cases, when young people or members of special groups have left the regular school system and wish to acquire new skills, a delay of one year is a real waste of human resources at a time when the need is greatest.
Fifth, under the new legislation, workers will be allowed to receive a more specialized training for a period longer than today's 52-week limit. This provision, which will remove the 52-week limit for training courses and allow the financing of training programs over a longer period, is of major importance and it is essential that it be approved as soon as possible.
Highly-specialized training programs in occupations of national importance would benefit the most from this provision. Removal of this restriction will also make it possible to combine preparatory courses with personal training on the basis of existing opportunities. This would benefit many
workers, such as women who re-enter the labour market and native people who need such a combination to acquire skills and find jobs. Sixth, the new legislation will provide support for employers who have to train highly-specialized Canadian workers abroad. Under this bill, the Commission would be able to negotiate with the employers training agreements for programs-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Marceau: I am grateful to my colleagues and I shall not abuse the leave I have been given. I shall conclude my comments in a few minutes. This provision would benefit a great number of workers, such as women who re-enter the labour market. This provision also would be applied in a moderate way, but it could be extremely useful when production methods require the use of new technology which is not yet taught in Canada. In such a case, Canadian workers could be trained where techniques were developed, acquire the latest skills and therefore gain access to key jobs deriving from economic expansion.
Seven, the legislation will simplify agreement procedures with employers and the payment to provinces of money provided for in the contract, in order to reduce paper work and accelerate training.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the progress of the economy in quantitative and qualitative terms over the eighties implies a major increase in the resources committed to the acquisition of higher skills. Under the new legislation, we intend to establish a national training program centred on trades, where there is very strong worker demand for the retraining of labour affected by new technology, and on unemployed worker training to prepare for jobs in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my wholehearted support to this legislation, even though I feel it will not solve all our problems. I find, however, that members on all sides react positively to the legislation. I commend them for that. I am ready to support the bill and I invite my colleagues to do so, with the hope that it will be a major tool toward the solution of the disquieting problem of unemployment, Canada's number one problem, to which all members are committed to bring a fast answer.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, you know of my special interest in this subject, so you will understand that I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate on this day. Unfortunately, this is not a very good day to discuss a measure like this, in light of the statistics announced earlier showing that we have record unemployment.
June 4, 1982

Not even in the deepest of the depression did we have the numbers of unemployed we have today.
Mir. Deans: We are leading the industrialized world.


Frank Oberle: What the statistics do not readily reveal is that over half of the 1.25 million unemployed-and that is only the official statistic; the number is closer to two million-are under the age of 24, and that is a serious indictment respecting the ability of this government to come to grips with a very serious situation.
It is very difficult to discuss this bill without providing the backdrop of what it is intended to do and the problem it is supposed to solve. Many of my colleagues have repeatedly said that we have entered a new era of technological and industrial revolution, one that will proceed and accelerate at a pace ten times as fast as the industrial revolution which has been under way for 200 years. If that is so and if all the promises and opportunities this new technological and microelectronic revolution will bring with it are realized, I am very much afraid this bill will do very little to respond to these opportunities and challenges. However, to be fair, it is a small step and it is in a general direction, so we are looking forward to discussing this matter in committee further and providing the minister with some ideas that we on this side of the House have developed.
I am rather pleased that in his speeches the minister uses some statistics that I have assembled and some from reports made by his department and others who have studied what I call the human resource paradox. There are major industrial projects, particularly in new industries, that cannot proceed because of a serious shortage of manpower skills on the one hand and, on the other, because there are large numbers of unemployed who have no opportunity to find work.
The minister and the government must come to grips with the fact that in the post-war period it was commonplace, every time manpower skills were needed, to bring in well trained, seasoned immigrants to fill the jobs. The average Canadian workers were left to find jobs as labourers and acquire skills as they went along. That would not help us respond to the challenges and the opportunities of the last ten or 15 years of this century and the beginning of the next.
This bill is supposed to carve out a role for the federal government to re-enter or to broaden its participation in the field of education. We all know that since confederation there has been an ongoing dispute between the federal and provincial governments. The provinces have guarded their jurisdiction over culture and education very jealously, rejecting every effort of the federal government to carve out a role for itself. My illustrious colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) outlined for us how the federal government from time to time, and with varying degrees of success, has intervened in this area.
There is a new twist, however, in the way that the minister proposes to intervene in the field of education. May I say at the outset that I agree with the notion that the federal government will have a major role in this area. It will have to pay for
National Training Act
what I call its deliberate policy of neglect of our educational system which is supposed to train young people for the transition from school to work.
At the end of this month another 200,000 young people will graduate from our schools and will enter the job market for the first time. The provinces seem to think that their role is complete then, and that unless a young person goes on to university it is the responsibility of the federal government to find him a job and, if that is not possible, to find a way of getting him on the unemployment insurance rolls.
The federal government should begin to establish a national focus for education. The minister has proposed a new definition of the word occupation. Clause 2 of the bill reads in part as follows:
"occupational training" means any instruction, other than university instruction, that provides a person with skills for, or improves a person's skills in, an occupation;
So occupational training is no longer regarded as education and, as a result, the federal government feels justified in entering the field. I am not worried about that because I think we should seize any opportunity to help in this area. To be educated in school will now mean that the schools look after academic requirements. The minister will probably agree with me that the primary and secondary school system is geared to fulfilling academic requirements-everyone wants their children to become doctors, lawyers and engineers and nobody wants their children to scramble through life in a blue collar job.
I think that governments, unions, schools and industry all have a role to play in removing the stigma attached to blue collar trades. Some of these do quite well, I am told. It is reported that some plumbers make more money than doctors these days, so a stigma should not be attached to a blue collar job. Nevertheless, our education system is still geared to the academic side which prepares young people for university.
I have assembled some statistics on how many young people who graduate go on to university. I became interested in the subject after reading a report of a commission appointed by our OECD trading partners. It has studied the educational system in this country and made some recommendations. These were rather startling. It found that Canada has spent more money than any other country in the western world-and one can assume that means any country in the world-on educational facilities. In the sixties there was a great push to build new schools, learning institutions and universities. Money was no object, and we outclassed every other country in our generosity to our educational system.
The commission found that the product of these schools was mediocre in comparison to the educational skills, academic or vocational, of other systems. That finding offended me and 1 became interested in the subject. Having studied it, I then decided to write my own paper and to that end I assembled some statistics.
I found that about 30 per cent of people who passed grade nine and entered the last three years of secondary schooling

June 4, 1982
National Training Act
did not complete school. In general they enter the labour market and find jobs washing dishes, driving trucks, or labouring in the hopes that they will acquire skills as they go along. Too often they just stand around on the streets, particularly when the economy is in the state it is in now. Their hopes and dreams are shattered and no one knows what happens to them.
Of the 70 per cent that complete school, only 30 per cent advance to post-secondary institutions, and of those, only 19 per cent get a degree. So 70 per cent of the graduating school population on the job market is totally unskilled and 200,000 of them will enter the job market at the end of this month.
The OECD people, and I in my report, looked at a number of other countries and what they are doing to overcome this problem. It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that I grew up and went to school in another country. Therefore I have personal experience in this particular area, so it was not very difficult for me to make comparisons. The secondary school system in most of the industrial countries we compete with is a dual system. Young people make their decision on what they will do for the rest of their lives at a much earlier age, usually 14 or 15, in consultation with their parents and guidance counsellors. When you consider, Mr. Speaker, that it costs the taxpayer $3,200 a year to keep a student in school, and when you consider that 70 per cent of those in grades 11 and 12 are totally bored by the system and will not get anything out of it, that is getting to be pretty ridiculous.
When I moved my family here my son and daughter were to go to grade 13. I asked an official of the Ontario Department of Education why, for heaven's sakes, in this province there are 13 grades of school instead of 12, as is the case in most other provinces? The reason stated was that we cannot afford to send out another 100,000 people to stand around on street corners. In fact, the official said, it is a glorified babysitting service.
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I see some failings in this bill, particularly where the minister says he will use some of this new-found money to build additional educational facilities and buy additional equipment. I know the minister has read my report, and he complimented me on it. It is not, of course, the be all and end all. Some people say the attitudes in our country are not conducive to the kind of dual system that exists in Germany and Japan and in other countries with which we compete. However, I ask myself from time to time whether this is not the time for government and politicians to change their attitude toward education because we know the system is failing and our young people are not properly served. Someone has to do something. Now, who should do so if not our senior levels of government?
There are other components of this bill which worry me, for example, where it says that those people who can prove they have not been in school for at least a 12-month period can qualify for vocational or occupational training courses. There is a qualification, and I respect that, that the commission or
inspector can waive that particular provision. But why is it in there in the first place? According to the report of the OECD inspectors, we are not doing too bad a job in adult training. Our regional colleges are doing a good job in training our adults, but we are spending most of our time and resources in chasing the horse after it has left the barn. Neither this bill nor any other measure laid before us since I have been here has been designed in any way to come to grips with the root cause of the problem: to challenge our young people at a much earlier age to make a decision.


Ian Deans: That is nonsense.


Frank Oberle: My friend says this is nonsense. I invite him to read the OECD report and my report. These are reasonable suggestions; they are working well in every other land-


Ian Deans: That is absolute and unadulterated nonsense. You should get out of here and go and see.


Walter David Baker: Why don't you go back to sleep.


Frank Oberle: I challenge the hon. member to tell me why it is that at the present time over half of the unemployed are under the age of 24. The fact is that our educational system has failed them miserably, and our senior governments have pursued a policy of deliberate neglect in terms of looking after the legitimate needs and aspirations of our young people.
There are other sections in this bill that we will certainly want to examine when we get it into committee, but I would like to think that members have an open mind. Certainly this bill is not conducive to making amendments which would lead us to these kinds of far-reaching proposals which have been made. The minister, from time to time, like his colleagues, indulges in making accusations to the effect that the opposition only criticizes and never has any constructive ideas to put forward. I want to serve notice on him that we will bring to committee some constructive ideas, and we would be very pleased if the minister would come to the committee with the same kind of open mind. He is talking about spending a lot of money, and we want to be assured that it will be spent in the right direction.
Another portion of the bill which is nothing new is the clause which says that no occupational course can last longer than 52 weeks. I recognize the fact that the commission can waive that provision, but I question its being in the bill in the first place. The problem is that as we look for national occupations, I assume the minister does not intend these to be occupations which are needed from time to time. I would think the government intends to identify certain national occupations toward which young persons or adults would work to achieve a certificate, and these occupations would be identified as such. It would not necessarily be the job of a welder; rather, I would say, that of a forestry technician, a baker or a chef. It does not matter what kind of learning institution you are in, it takes longer than 52 weeks to become a millwright. In fact, I maintain there is no institution in this country, nor would you be
June 4, 1982

able to create one, that would be able to respond to the challenge of the new technological revolution. In future, training will have to be carried on in the actual workplace.
The dual system I envisage would accommodate that. Industry would play a much greater role in training young people. In many other industrialized countries industry is compelled to assume that role. They are penalized through the tax system if they do not, and are rewarded in the same way if they oversubscribe to the programs. The schools and colleges then play a role in backing up the training which goes on in industry.
If you look at national occupations or vocations, Mr. Speaker, then you have to design programs which will last a lot longer than 52 weeks. In fact, for most of the occupations I mentioned, be they that of a millwright or a computer technician, and I could rattle off 40 or 50 others, the courses should probably run for three to four years. You cannot learn to be an electrician in 52 weeks and be able to market your skill in competition with people who have worked in the trade for a long time. The training would not necessarily require the construction of new buildings or the provision of new equipment. We have a lot of fine facilities, particularly in the secondary schools, which are underutilized.
For the information of my friend to the left, who seems to be over-reacting to some of the things I said, let me say that I get a lot of mail from teachers. I sent 5,000 copies of my report particularly to schools and school boards. I get a lot of response from teachers who tell me it is about time that somebody talked about these things openly, because teachers are incredibly frustrated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall Notices of Motions No. 51 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall Motion No. 52 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall Motion No. 54 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 13.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I have two private member's motions, Nos. 13 and 66, on the Order Paper. I believe that the House would be prepared to give unanimous consent to switch these two motions so that I and
Senate Reform
other members of the House would have the opportunity to discuss and debate Motion No. 66 today rather than Motion No. 13, as Motion No. 13 has been discussed in the past. I would ask the House to give unanimous consent to the exchange of these two motions.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is, in fact, consent to make that switch. If the hon. gentleman needs a seconder for his motion, as he is an independent member, I will second his motion. In order that it can be considered and passed by the House, I will not occupy the time of the House by making a speech.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are prepared to give our consent to that order.


Ian Deans: I want simply to ask a question with regard to that order before we proceed. Is it the intention of the hon. member to withdraw or otherwise dispose of Motion No. 13?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The proposal is that the House today consider item No. 66 in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). In order to do so, we would have to stand items prior to that, with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will all items prior to No. 66 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
All items preceding No. 66 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.


THE SENATE
William J. Yurko: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to evolve and bring before the Parliament of Canada a bill to provide for the structural reform of the Senate of Canada;
That nine Members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be Members on the part of this House on the Special Joint Committee;
That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its Members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada and to hold public hearings and consult fully with all provincial governments and Members of the legislative assemblies of the provinces as well as with the federal government and all Members of Parliament and Senators;

June 4, 1982
Senate Reform
That the Committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers to assist in its work; and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required;
That the Committee submit its report not later than November 1, 1982;
That the quorum of the Committee be six Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when six Members are present so long as both Houses are represented;
That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that that House do unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee; and
That the Committee consider the following documents before submitting its report and bringing forward a bill to provide for the structural reform of the
Senate:
1)	Bill C-640, An Act to provide for structural reform of the Senate of
Canada
2)	the Report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, 1972
3)	Bill C-60, The Constitutional Amendment Bill, 1978
4)	the Report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, 1978
5)	the Report of the Special Senate Committee on the Constitution, 1978
6)	British Columbia's Constitutional Proposals, 1978
7)	the Report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, 1979
8)	the Report of the Constitutional Committee of the Quebec Liberal Party,
9)	the Report on Certain Aspects of the Canadian Constitution, 1980
and any other studies, reports or submissions that the Committee deems appropriate for consideration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like starting by indicating that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that this House pass this motion at the earliest opportunity so that in fact we can proceed with the motion as it is on the Order Paper.
I want to indicate that I have not moved any motion to that effect. 1 simply said that I feel like moving a motion to that effect and that it might be passed today so that the House could move forward with this motion.
This motion requests that a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to evolve and bring before the Parliament of Canada a bill to provide for the structural reform of the Senate of Canada. I am not going to read the motion, because it is fairly extensive, on the understanding that it will be included in its entirety in Hansard.
I want to underscore several parts of this motion and read them in to Hansard a second time, that is, that the committee consider the following documents before submitting its report and bringing forth a bill to provide for the structural reform of the Senate:
First, Bill C-640, an act to provide for structural reform of the Senate of Canada,
Second, the report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, 1972,
Third, Bill C-60, the Constitutional Amendment Bill, 1978,
Fourth, the Report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, 1978,
Fifth, the Report of the Special Senate Committee on the Constitution, 1978,
Sixth, British Columbia's Constitutional Proposals, 1978,
Seventh, the Report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, 1979,
Eighth, the Report of the Constitutional Committee of the Quebec Liberal Party, 1980,
Ninth, the Report on Certain Aspects of the Canadian Constitution, 1980.
All these reports or papers, if you wish, deal with the reform of the Senate.
There are two aspects I wish to debate today. One is the need for Senate reform and some of the concepts incorporated in Bill C-640. The other is the process itself for structural Senate reform.
Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the second part first, the process for structural Senate reform.
I have been in this House now for three years and I remember, as a provincial member and a member of a provincial cabinet, that for some 12 years the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) with the Premiers across the land, held first ministers' conferences to patriate the Constitution and reform the Constitution. They simply got nowhere. They held meeting after meeting after meeting and came to no conclusion and had no success.
It was not until the process was initiated by this House that the process of patriation and the incorporation of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the evolution of an amending formula, finally reached success.
It was this House that took action by unanimous consent on May 9, 1980. It was this House that set up a joint committee of this House and the Senate to look at all aspects of a charter of rights and freedoms.
When this House took action directly, then things began to happen. So I am saying, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the process for Senate reform, that we must move to a similar type of action as we did with constitutional patriation and constitutional reform.
When this House and this Parliament puts together a proposal that is sound in every aspect, and then the Prime Minister goes to the Premiers with it, generally there is some form of agreement. But as long as the process was one of ten Premiers and the Prime Minister, or the 11 first ministers, getting together for a talk session, nothing ever happened. For 12 years that process went on.
I say again that until this House took very specific action, nothing really happened. But once this House took specific action then indeed we succeeded in repatriating the Constitution, with the entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and even in the evolution and acceptance of an amending formula.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am proposing through this Motion No. 66 that a similar type of process be undertaken, that we agree to the establishment of a joint committee of this House and the other place and that this committee be allowed to travel from one end of the nation to the other, and indeed consult with the
June 4, 1982

premiers, consult the provincial governments, and review all the past literature, and hold public hearings, if necessary, in regard to the meaning of the Senate itself. Then it can bring before this House a specific bill for Senate structural reform and also present the bill at the same time to the other place.
I am convinced that if we pursue, as the Parliament of Canada, this type of process, we will be successful in regard to Senate reform.
The next question is: why is Senate reform necessary? Henri Bourassa once said that Senate reform "comes periodically like other forms of epidemics and current fevers". He was right. Our history, especially our recent history, is littered with the forgotten remnants of proposals, studies and legislative initiatives which tried to breathe new life into an institution that has been wasting away for over 100 years. The fact is that reform of the Senate will not wait much longer. We have reached a point in our national development where we must make our institutions more responsive to every facet of Canadian society. There is a crisis of confidence in these institutions which has exacerbated regional and provincial alienation.
Over the last 20 years, economic, cultural and sociological developments have radically altered the face of Canada. Institutional reform is imperative, not only to respond to these developments, but to allow us to confront future challenges and problems, confident that our institutions can cope with the complexity of the problems before them.
Although the patriation of the Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an amending formula will help to revitalize our institutions, the debate surrounding patriation has unfortunately accentuated the acrimony and alienation felt in some parts of the country, particularly out west, because there is no clause for ownership of property. We must now take the reform process one step further to lessen ill feelings and tensions which have arisen. The west needs Senate reform; it needs a voice at the centre which represents the regions. This was the identified need for the Senate in the first place in Macdonald's time. Senate structural reform is necessary so that the provinces and regions can be represented directly at the centre in a meaningful way.
I have worked on Senate reform for quite a number of years. I have written a number of letters and have made a number of proposals in past years, but perhaps the two most appropriate initiatives which I took were to structure and introduce Bill C-640 and to place Motion No. 66 on the Order Paper, so that somehow or other this parliamentary institution could move in a meaningful way toward Senate reform.
I believe a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to investigate Senate reform and to report back to Parliament is a necessity. Such a committee would consult fully with all provincial governments and members of legislative assemblies, as well as with the federal government and all members of this institution. As I said earlier, this is an approach which can work and is more likely
Senate Reform
to succeed than allowing first ministers to do something which in the past they have always failed to achieve.
Bill C-640, an act to provide for the structural reform of the Senate of Canada, was intended to highlight the need for Senate reform as the first constitutional priority following the patriation of the Constitution. It sought to provide representation and balance in Parliament of the national, regional and provincial interests. I have proposed that the Senate be composed, to represent the national interest, of 150 senatorial chairs, and that these senatorial chairs be representative of five natural regions in Canada, with each region providing 30 senators to the Parliament of Canada. Also I proposed that the provincial interests be represented in the Senate by five senators for each province, appointed by the provinces and responsible to the provincial legislative assemblies. Furthermore, the bill was structured to provide the Senate body and each individual member with stability, continuity, accountability, legitimacy and independence.
I want to touch briefly upon each of these points in my remaining time. In regard to stability, each existing Senate member is permitted to complete his or her appointment in accordance with the terms of appointment. Each new senator is appointed for a minimum of six years, and then will have to return to the people to seek reconfirmation. It would be a form of election, a half-way situation between an appointed Senate and an elected Senate. Also I should say that it would be inappropriate to attempt to change the existing tenure of any senator who was elected or selected upon an existing system.
In regard to continuity, the transition from the old senatorial regime to the new one is structured so that only approximately one third of the senators would be up for reconfirmation every third year. Although I have had many second thoughts on this particular point, I now believe strongly that reconfirmation should occur only every six years. This presents an interesting complexity of senators within a restructured Senate in the future, if reconfirmation is held only on a six-year basis.
Let us imagine the situation where, from one end of this nation to the other, every six years senators initially appointed had to return to the people to seek reconfirmation in each province. Let us imagine a number of regional senators having to go back to the regions to seek reconfirmation. I think it would have a dramatic effect upon all Canada. I think senators would become important, and they would have to account for their usefulness in this institution to the people of the provinces and to the regions they represent. They would be accountable directly to the people they represent in this institution.
In regard to legitimacy, senators now lack legitimacy because they are appointed by one person, namely, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), they serve to the age of 75 years and are accountable individually and collectively to no one but themselves and perhaps to the person who appointed them. Lawmakers or lawgivers must surely gain legitimacy for their powers directly, or at least indirectly, from the people. Therefore, in the bill I have proposed they are appointed by all the people's representatives, either provincially or federally, and

June 4, 1982
Senate Reform
must go directly back to the people for reconfirmation rather than be appointed by one man only.
In regard to independence, under the new bill a senator can and will be able to maintain non-partisanship if he or she so wishes.
This is only one bill. This is only one alternative for Senate structural reform. As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, there are many alternatives. The structural reform of the Senate has been investigated and there are enough reports on that proposal to fill a suitcase.
The question which has been before most of us is whether it should be an appointed or an elected Senate. Surely the only acceptable process is one that is half-way in between. An elected Senate would permit directions which would not be acceptable to our system of government in Canada. I hope that hon. members and the government would seriously consider beginning a new process of senatorial reform similar to what it did in connection with constitutional patriation and constitutional reform. If it does, I believe that the other place can experience reform at the earliest opportunity and become a very effective representation of the regions and provinces in this place.
I suggest to you that much of the ferment which exists out west, such as western separatism, which I discount and reject, has been a result of inadequate direct representation by the provinces and regions in the Parliament of Canada. Senate structural reform must be one of the top priorities of additional constitutional reform from now on.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to indicate to the hon. member who just spoke that I am generally supportive of the thrust of his motion. He is aware of that because when he wrote to each of us I was one of those members who responded to his well-thought-out submission.
At that time I made two or three comments on the proposal. One of my initial reactions was that the reconfirmation procedure would be more appropriate if we did not end up with too many reconfirmation campaigns within a given period of time. I suggested that we could perhaps lump together reconfirmations in order to prevent us from going through that procedure too often.
The other aspects of his original proposition seem to have been streamlined, as they now appear in this motion.
Some of the very interesting suggestions that the hon. member made at the time included Indian representation in the House of Commons. Whether that is the kind of proposition we would want to consider in the House-to have separate Indian representation-is certainly not something to which I want to commit myself now. However, it is an interesting subject which should be thoroughly examined and debated. New Zealand does have that kind of system with regard to the Maori population. I believe there are people with opinions from both sides of the fence as to how that system works now, but I suspect that the Maori population is still favourable to that idea even though their representation, which I believe
numbers only four, is not very significant considering the number of Maoris as a percentage of the total population of New Zealand.
Although I should not create new issues, issues which have not been raised in this motion, I did take issue with another point in the original motion. It concerned the question of provincehood for the Yukon territories. This seemed to be initially part of the motion which the hon. member was proposing. I have some quite strong reservations about provincehood for the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, not in the very long run but in the immediate short term. I believe that we should be aiming toward a constitutional mechanism which will allow the population of those two territories to have an efficient government. There should be a mechanism whereby they will be allowed to communicate and solve problems that are affected by directions from Ottawa. We should provide mechanisms which will allow a rapid and efficient flow-through, whenever Ottawa civil servants are involved, to the local population in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
We should get rid of the red tape, but we should consider the many alternatives before coming to the conclusion that provincehood for that size of population in these days is necessarily the only solution.
I would like to thank the hon. member for having given us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss this most important issue . I know that he is on the right track. This type of reconfirmation mechanism which he talks about is imaginative and, I believe, holds the key to the kind of reform in the Senate that will be meaningful, useful and effective as far as better government in Canada is concerned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) who just spoke had some kind words for my hon. friend from Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) when he said that this resolution was on the right track. My thought there is that it is possibly on the right track for the first step. Beyond that, however, I part company with him.
The hon. member for Edmonton East has rather bootlegged into this resolution, in what he calls Bill C-640, a formula which he has conceived. It is a denial of the whole purpose of his resolution.
When we began our very difficult national gestation of a constitution two years ago I was totally opposed to the principle of setting up a new constitution which would emanate from one man who had no mandate and a cabinet which had no mandate, in consultation with ten premiers who had no mandate. A constitution is not something that is drawn up by someone and imposed on people. A constitution is that body of law handed to a parliamentary institution for the governments of the people. It may become rather difficult to get full accord or a large majority to agree to the Constitution, but we are not a revolutionary state, we are not a conquered state with a constitution imposed upon it.
June 4, 1982

Under the present Constitution, or the type of government that we have in a parliamentary form of constitutional monarch, the Senate constitutes one third of the Parliament of Canada. I think all those hon. members of the Elouse who go about saying that the Senate should be abolished or that this or that should be done in the Senate are displaying appalling gall. I say, rather, "Physician, heal thyself'. I would rather say that this chamber should preoccupy itself first with determining what is wrong with this institution-


David P. Smith: You are doing that.


Mr. Peterson:: We have a lot of work to do.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -not just as to the mechanics of it. We should consider whether we will increase the size of this place by almost arithmetic progression, if we do not stop, and whether the powers of the cabinet with regard to this chamber, to this Elouse, should not be modified. Should there not be more control by the backbenchers over cabinet in what is euphemistically called responsible government?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It is responsible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Should there not be a great deal more responsibility between the administration and hon. members of this House? However, let me say that an hon. member is elected to legislate, to discuss, and not to administer as unfortunately, so many municipal councils do. Members are elected to arrive at decisions and to set down policy. How many municipal councillors decide that they will be the chief administrators and will override the administrators on every account, that they will sit on their shoulders and tell them what they will do in every particular situation? That is not for this House.
I would say, coming back to the purport of this notice of motion that, yes, I agree that this is a way of starting a joint Senate-House of Commons committee, although the resolution is deficient in specifying the number of Senators to be invited. I would say that the Senate being a third of Parliament, if we were to change its structure, perhaps we would find there are too many members from the House of Commons, and if that body were to be too large, I think a body of 12 would be big enough so that there could be six from either place. Remember, Mr. Speaker-and 1 would invite hon. members to consider this-the Senate is precisely one third of our parliamentary government. So, six Senators would represent Canada just as much as we do. I do not know where people get the idea, but there is some self-generated conception, which is a misconception, that, having been elected, we are nationally anointed and that only we have wisdom, that we are the ones on our own.


David P. Smith: Popularly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is the idea that the tongues of fire have alighted on our heads, that we are the divinely inspired in the House of Commons and that everyone else is some degree lower.
Senate Reform
Mr. Speaker, I invite you to read the reports of Senate committees to see their quality of work. They beat our House committees and our task forces. Frankly, their reports are worth a great deal, but do not expect the popular media to read them. That is work. All the media wants to see, shall we say, is the 45 minutes or so of blood and gore of the question period, that so-called media event-


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -on which it bases opinions as to the performance of government, performance of individual hon. members or cabinet ministers, etc. It is a showplace and I think it is worthless. Their performance is worthless. But let us see the true worth of committee reports and some of the Senate work. How many people have read Senate Hansard to see the quality of some of the speeches? There is not a reporter covering them. One never hears anything about the Senate speeches. I do not know if there is a reporter here. At noon, when we were listening to a very excellent speech by our member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie)-


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: From somewhere in Ontario.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is from Rosedale.


David P. Smith: That tiny perfect fellow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was an excellent speech. It had been well prepared. It was not read. I heard some evilly-read speeches today, as though they were being looked at for the first time, to the mystification of the hon. members presenting them.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Be careful. The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) will identify himself.
But that is something that we fail to notice about the Senate as it is now constituted. Certainly, there are some people who are less than others, but that is something which exists in this chamber, too. I would look for a committee of 12 to serve as that body which will hear representations from all parts of the country as to whether and how the Senate should be changed. It can consult, as the resolution calls for, provincial premiers, members of the opposition in the provinces and academics, and can hold public meetings and receive briefs. In other words, it would determine from the people how they want their Senate to be constituted. The public did not really get much say on the Constitution, as it is now part of the Canada Act, nor on its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was a government which, in many instances, did not yield, even though the majority of public opinion was against it. Then, the final indignity was the bargaining of rights to arrive at a consensus so that the project could go forward, or else it would go forward as a unilateral action. Talk about the tyranny of a temporary majority! That was the epitome of the performance.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It was scandalous.


David P. Smith: Shocking.

June 4, 1982
Senate Reform


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Again, we come forward. My colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton East, after putting forward this idea, then put forward his own pet theory about how the Senate should be constituted. He has made up his mind already, except that he does concede there might be some optional solutions. He does not go quite that far. I think it would be nine to ten or nine to one of what appears in Bill C-640. Somewhere in there is his favourite proposal.
I do not think we should be tied down to that. We should not be tied down to anything except that the government should be serious about meeting the desires of the people with regard to the Senate. The results would range all the way from total abolition, so that this becomes a unicameral subject, to the tyranny of the temperate majority, or we might have an elected-type of Senate such as there is in the United States or Australia where there are real problems. Not one is 100 per cent perfect. I suggest, however, that the basic idea of the joint representation be accepted. I do not think there should be 18 members on the committee, but a lesser number with the proper staff.
Here I hesitate as to the form of this motion in that it obviously envisages government expenditure. Therefore, it should be of a recommendary nature, that the government should give consideration to the idea. When one recommends the appointment of people with authority to do this and that, it goes beyond the power of an ordinary member to embody that in his motion.
I have done a fair bit of picking on this. Basically, I commend the debate this afternoon. It gives us an opportunity to discuss this on a reasonable basis, taking into account the existence of and the part that the Senate plays in Parliament without us telling them that we do not think much of them. I hope some day that some senator will write a candid comment about the House of Commons. It would be very interesting reading. I hope we will hear some other views. We could get on with this.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the proposition before us, I would say that while the New Democratic Party has long advocated the abolition of the Senate, that position should in no way be construed as signifying unalterable opposition to the concept of a second chamber if such a chamber were to be structured on a democratic, responsible and realistically representative foundation. Because of that long-held position which my party has taken, we as a party perhaps have not given the due measure of attention to the subject of alternatives that we otherwise would have done. Therefore, what I am about to say consists largely of my own musings on the subject, although they do arise from conversations with quite a large cross-section of people from different parts of the country with different economic and social backgrounds. They are in large part coloured by my own concept of what is one of my particular roles.
When I stood for election in 1980,1 was quite frank with my constituents. I told them that if they saw fit to elect me, they should be prepared for me to be somewhat of a shared representative. They elected me quite knowingly on that basis, not only as the representative of the geographical constituency of Kootenay West, which I am proud and honoured to represent, but as one of a very few blue collar industrial workers to have the good fortune or otherwise to be part of this place. As such, I and a very few other members of this House have a particular vantage point, which is somewhat different from that of others, to present on this subject and a number of others.
There are only half a dozen, if that, members of this House who can be called industrial wage earners. This is the inverted pyramid, as it is often called, where vast numbers of Canadians who earn their living by wages find themselves singularly unrepresented in terms of a government of people who do not share their background and experiences. That is an awkward position to be in from time to time.
Many of the values of that section of our population are not always reflected, shared or understood by people who come primarily from a middle-class background, the professions such as the legal profession or the old professions or from the academic community.
I mention this briefly because it strikes many of us that we feel no great excitement about the establishment of a second chamber which would repeat all of these errors in its type of selection, whether it be elected, appointed by region or otherwise. Such an institution will continue to see neglected the direct expressions, opinions and interests of a very large number of Canadians who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty in being heard so as to ensure that their interests are adequately looked after by government at all levels. The nature of their work is something that prevents them from doing that.
If you ask any Canadian what he or she is, they will tell you that they are a Quebecer, a British Columbian, or a Manitoban. Very often they will give their specific region, province or place of origin. Second, they are likely to say they are either a carpenter, lawyer, secretary, woodworker, miner or teacher. In other words, whether people are elected or appointed, they are known by where they live or what they do.
Representation in this House is based largely on geographical borders and constituencies. They are largely artificial electoral areas. I am lucky because my constituency has natural frontiers that were recognized long before it was a constituency. Not all constituencies have that sense of homogeneity.
We do not represent parties as we are not elected on a proportional or party-list basis as in some other jurisdictions. We are elected geographically within regions.
There has been a lot of talk about divisions of opinions or interests in this country. All divisions are certainly not east and west, although they are the ones that make the headlines. Many of the serious divisions of a political and economic
June 4, 1982

nature are urban versus hinterland rather than east versus west. There are very common differences and attitudes between the interior of British Columbia and the lower mainland, including the major metropolis of Vancouver. The same is found in many areas of rural Alberta as opposed to the administrative and industrial centres of that province. It is found between northern Ontario and Toronto. There is probably no less love lost in those areas than between the east and the west of Canada. Very often what takes place within a province or region is just a microcosm of the divisions that take place on a broader scale. There are certainly many serious divisions between the hinterland of Quebec and Montreal and Quebec City. However, those distinctions are as representative of different geographic areas as they are of the different economic functions that a hinterland and an urban metropolis represent. It is basically a difference between the managerial and the consumer interests of a city and the interests of the producer population, particularly in the resource industries in the hinterland of our country, whether it is in relation to forestry, mining, agriculture or fishing.
While it is appropriate that a province choose representatives to sit in the Senate, I hope if a committee is formed to make choices as to what representatives shall sit in the second chamber, whether by election process or selection-which I suggest is probably more appropriate-by various provincial governments, I suggest there should be some requirement other than simply a moral one to ensure that within the selection process adequate weight is given to those economic interests which make up the various populations, whether on a regional basis within a province or of working people either independently or through their organizations.
Management groups also find themselves under-represented in this elected chamber, as do unions and employees. We are largely an academic, legal, professional institution, and business and labour find themselves almost totally excluded. That shows in the kinds of things we do, not only in terms of our social attitudes, our social legislation and many other aspects of legislation we draft, but it certainly also shows in the way we handle-rather, mishandle-our economy continuously as a government and as a Parliament.
What I am trying to say is that in my view and in the view of many other working Canadians-and a number of Canadians in the business community as well-the last thing we need in Canada is another middle-class institution with middle-class values and middle-class priorities. We have many institutions and many legislators who are basically woolly-headed idealists in the sense that if we simply pass a law they think we suddenly really change something. Most people in the work-a-day world, whether labour or management, realize that life, the constitutional process, the legislative process and the structure of our society, are largely like a long arm-wrestling contest. It is like two fish in a goldfish bowl. We go back and forth, and then end up somewhere in the middle. Thus we end up with packages or results which everyone, whether they love it or not,
Senate Reform
realize we have to live with, rather than engaging in a continuous infantile name calling in which no one accepts responsibility for anything. Perhaps I and a few of my colleagues who share my background are locked into our background in the sense that somehow we prefer a system in which, even if we are not absolutely satisfied with the outcome of a process of negotiations or bargaining, at some point we realize that the battle has to end; we sign our names, make our own commitments and put our names on the dotted line, and that is something we have to live with for x number of years. It does not happen that way here, and I really do not think we need another institution in which the same kind of unhealthy attitudes to life and the processes of living together continue to exist.
I suspect I am not in the enviable position of my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), who has a specific formula in mind, although I am sure he is as flexible in this as he has been on other occasions and on other major subjects which have received quite a bit of consideration in this House in recent months and years. But if this proposal is to go ahead, either now or at some time in the future-and I am sure something akin to it will-I would like us to bear in mind that there is a large body of people out there in the country who feel left out of our processes. They do not look at this Parliament as really being their Parliament. They do not look at the courts of this land as really being their courts. They do not look at the Senate of this country as being their Senate. Sometimes they have a great deal of difficulty believing that the institutions to which we all pledge our loyalty really consider deeply what their legitimate interests are, quite apart from serving them. I hope in the drafting of any proposal for a second chamber we give consideration to other divisions, whether on a subregional or interest basis, to ensure that working people and people who have devoted their lives to participating in the productive aspects of our society, whether in labouring roles or in management roles, can say that it results in government not only "of the people, by the people and for the people", but also that they may have a vested stake in their institutions and they may exercise some continuing loyalty and ability to participate more directly in the decisions which affect their day to day lives.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to what the previous speaker had to say about his perception that there is an under-representation in this House of working middle-class people. I really do not believe that because the vast majority of Canadians, by any reasonable definition, are middle class, and it may be that some hon. members in this chamber have gone on to university or have gone into academic life, but I think we will find that there is a large proportion of the members of this chamber who came from farming communities, who were farmers or who were the sons of farmers. 1 have an academic background, yes. I taught at the University of British Columbia. My father was an electrician, and I was raised in an electrician's family.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Not the same thing.

June 4, 1982
Senate Reform


John Leslie Evans: I have the same roots as the hon. member does. I was raised in the same kind of family. I lived with my parents for 23 years. My parents were middle-class people who had a labour union background, 43 years in the IBEW, and I rather resent it when the hon. member says that we are not middle class, that the working people are not represented in this chamber, that we do not know what the working people want, or that we do not have parents or relatives who are working people. I consider all Canadians to be working people. They just work in different ways.
With regard to the Senate and the reform of the Senate, there are a few things I would like to say. The time is very short, I realize, but I have been thinking about this, as has the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), for some time, and I think the Senate needs to be reformed.
There are certan problems I see in the way the country is represented. I think we have difficulties with our political parties. All three political parties have expressed the feeling that the grass roots of political parties are not having enough input into what is going on here in Parliament, in the Senate, and generally in government at the federal, provincial and, indeed, at the municipal level to some extent as well.
There is also a definite and distinct problem with regional representation, and I think one of the major problems we have
faced in the last few years has been regional representation by federal-provincial conference, which bypasses Parliament and elected representatives. It is not acceptable, and we have to bring that regional representation in a very meaningful way back to this Parliament of Canada.
Finally, there is a problem of representation of political parties in different parts of the country. With respect to the proportional representation problem, it has been suggested that members of the House of Commons be elected in a certain way and that certain parts of the House be appointed on a proportional basis. I do not agree with that. I think we should all be elected by our people, but there could be another chamber where proportional representation would in fact be the case, and that could very well be the Senate.
I have some further ideas, but I see that our time has expired. I would like to put those ideas forward when this debate on the hon. member's motion resumes.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order,

Monday, June 7, 1982