1982-11-05

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   COMMISSIONS AND INQUIRIES SUGGESTED COMPOSITION

['Agreed.\nMotion agreed to.']
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I note with approval that the Government is planning a Royal Commission to inquire into the prospects for the Canadian economy. Rumour has it that members of that commission will include the Hon. Donald Macdonald, one of the architects of the problem in the first place, and Ian Stewart, the right hand man and the fall-guy for the whole massive failure, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen).
The precedent of "set a thief to catch a thief' is not a new one and has a long and varied history. The Government could perhaps do worse than follow such a policy. At least it should be spared the embarrassment of having its own policies called into question. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Government, following the same sort of reasoning as the foregoing, encourage municipalities across the country to appoint to their police commissions only practising criminals and to appoint only known polluters to probe environmental hazards.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an important matter of national honour. Considering recent events in Spain, and in view of the as yet officially unrecognized contribution and sacrifices of a number of Canadians to the cause of democracy in that land, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House express its long overdue appreciation and recognition of the historic contribution to the cause of democracy made by members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadian veterans of the Spanish War of 1936-39, and extend an invitation to representatives of their few surviving veterans to participate officially in and take an appropriate place of honour at our national Remembrance Day observance in Ottawa this year.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a continuing matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Bill C-137 is not the answer to the festering labour and management problems of the Ports of British Columbia. What is desperately needed is an industrial inquiry commission to determine the facts of the waterfront that have caused 13 years of continual strife. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Minister of Labour immediately appoint an industrial inquiry commission with very broad powers to study labour and management at the west coast ports and report its findings back to this House within one year.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in order that Canadians might know who really runs their country, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook):
That the small, manipulative elite please stand up and identify themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West.

November 5, 1982


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, it is now five months since the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs recommended that the federal government subsidize a federal-provincial conference designed to deal with and alleviate the problems of battered wives. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the House censure the federal Cabinet for its failure to act on this very important recommendation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, this morning Canada woke to the sad news that it has the worst unemployment in 50 years. There are 1,400,000 out of work, 12.7 per cent of the work force. The young unemployed represent 21 per cent. It is a national disgrace. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House condemn the Government for its callous neglect of the economy over the past 14 years and suggest that it stop listening to the Coutts, Davies and Pitfields of the world and start listening to and encouraging the business people, farmers, young people and the labourers of Canada who love this country and despise what the present administration is doing to it and their future.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Hon. Leader of the Official
Opposition (Mr. Clark), contrary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), has once again demonstrated his hypocrisy by making two different statements in his speech to the nation, one for English Canada and another for Quebec, and because he stated on one network that Quebec is receiving too much money and on the other, not enough, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier):
That the House condemn once again the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party for his intellectual dishonesty, urge him to show at least the courage of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) who, although he is both anti-bilingualism and anti-French Canadian, never speaks from both sides of his mouth-
-and ask this House to condemn the Conservative Leader's new habit of speaking out of both sides of his mouth and wish that he would go back to his old habit of putting his foot in it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion? The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, when there has been unparliamentary language used in this period-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -an objection must be raised immediately. In listening to the French translation channel, I heard the words "intentionally dishonest" attributed to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. If that translation was-


Madam Speaker:: I thought the Hon. Member was debating the motion. I suppose that he is rising on a point of order. I will listen to his point of order later on because, as he knows, we must proceed with Motions under Standing Order 43 and then proceed to the Question Period. If the Hon. Member has a point of order to raise, I can hear him later.


Erik Nielsen: Your Honour should hear it now.


Madam Speaker:: No, the rule under the practice of this House is that the Speaker neither entertains points of order nor questions of privilege at these particular times. However, I can hear them later on.


Erik Nielsen: Well, in the meantime, could I be provided with an accurate text of the motion just moved?


Some Hon. Members:: Sure.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 5, 1982


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas Canadians from coast to coast would no doubt agree the key to economic recovery lies in appointing yet another Royal Commission to study the economy, and whereas the federal Liberals, ever attuned to meeting head on the problems facing Canada, are reported to be considering such a commission, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House commend the Government for hiring Liberal exhaustees, Donald Macdonald and Ian Stewart, to study the mess they have created over the past decade and urge the Government to hire the hundreds of thousands of remaining exhaustees as permanent staff of the commission.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, in view of the obvious disillusionment of many young members of the Liberal Party with the hierarchy of Messrs. Coutts and Davey as well as other non-elected power brokers in our political system, expressed at the time of their National Party Conference, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankough-net):
That this House consider, for the benefit of Liberal delegates, the sentiment of G. K. Chesterton of literary fame, who expressed the following: "As much as I ever did, more than ever I did, I believe in Liberalism: but there was once a time, a rosy time of innocence, when I also believed in Liberals".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues in this House to a serious injustice that has been perpetrated against a group of Canadians living in Quebec. I am referring to the discriminatory black list of ethnic groups prepared by the Parti Quebecois government,
Oral Questions
which unfortunately reflects the kind of society that government wishes to establish, a society in which there is no salvation for people who do not fit into the PQ plan, whose goal is to separate Quebec from Canada. The effect of this action is divisive, it generates hate and it is against the objectives pursued by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I move, seconded by the Members for Rosedale and Hamilton Mountain (Messrs. Crombie and Deans):
That the act of preparing this blacklist is repugnant, unjust, provocative and worthy of censure, and goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We wish to remind this group of citizens in Quebec that they are full-fledged Canadians.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A year ago I asked the Government, when the unemployment rate was at 8.3 per cent, what it would do to stimulate employment. At that time I was advised by the Government that I should await the budget of the Minister of Finance in that November because it would contain initiatives to stimulate employment. History has shown us that, not only did it not create any employment initiatives, indeed the budget was instrumental in causing the historic high unemployment rates which we have this morning.
Last week the new Minister of Finance announced a job creation program which would create 60,000 jobs. In light of this morning's statistics on unemployment levels in the country, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what changes he is considering to his statement of last week.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, indeed the figures released this morning are very distressing. However, I remind the Hon. Member that in my statement of last week I indicated that we should expect such high levels of unemployment over the next while, that unemployment will only gradually decline over next year, 1983, and that we should take all necessary steps to help those most in need during that particular period. Although the economy will know

November 5, 1982
Oral Questions
recovery during 1983, the impact on unemployment will only be slow and gradual.
I remind the Hon. Member that, contrary to his initial statement, a number of measures were contained in both the November and the June budgets to help create jobs. As a matter of fact, we allocated SI.2 billion in job creation programs during that period. On top of this 1 announced last week a $1.1 billion program of direct and indirect job creation which should contribute toward alleviating this particular problem. However, 1 also indicated that we were under no illusion that this would have a dramatic impact on the unemployment level. That will only take place with a general recovery and with a resurgence of activity both in Canada and internationally. I remind the Hon. Member that unemployment at the present time is high in all industrialized countries by historical standards, and that we will pursue very actively our program of economic recovery.


David Edward Crombie: I take it from the response that the Minister is saying that there will not be any change in the Government's program in light of the statistics this morning.


ASSISTANCE FOR YOUNG UNEMPLOYED
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister who speaks for the Minister of State for Social Development in the other place, I will direct my next question to the Minister of Finance. The major thrust of the program of the Minister of Finance as stated last week was the creation of 60,000 jobs primarily aimed for those coming off unemployment insurance.
I am sure the Minister of Finance is aware that the unemployment level this morning for people between the ages of 15 and 24, the majority of whom are not the so-called exhaustees of unemployment insurance, stands at 21 per cent. I would like to ask the Minister if he has any specific program to help these people.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to point out to the Hon. Member that we do in fact have a number of programs that are directed to helping young people get first-time employment in the job market. The Canada Community Development Projects, as I have said in the House before, are now coming onstream and will provide, between now and Christmas, close to 60,000 new jobs. About 40 per cent of those jobs will go to people under the age of 24 in terms of direct employment.
We introduced a program last summer whereby we provide a subsidy of up to $2 an hour to employers under the Program for the Employment Disadvantaged in order to attract young people into the job market and give them first-time job experience.
We have those two programs in place, as well as a number of others related to student employment, and a new Outreach Program which provides proper counselling and guidance for young people so that they can go into the training programs which we are also introducing this year. We really have a three-pronged approach to try to address the problems of young people. We recognize it to be one of the very serious pressure points in the over-all employment picture.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has the same position as the Minister of Finance, and that is not to make any changes in light of the statistics this morning.


REGIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I have another supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Canadian people may find more hope from him than from the other two. The Minister is responsible for the old regional economic development programs. He might be interested to know this morning that Prince George-Peace River now has an unemployment rate of 18.9 per cent. It was 9.1 per cent a year ago. A year ago Sault Ste. Marie had an unemployment rate of 6 per cent. It now has an unemployment rate of 17 per cent. Hamilton-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


David Edward Crombie: The people in Hamilton want an answer to this question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: The unemployment rate in Hamilton has gone from 7.1 per cent to 14.3 per cent. The Gaspe has gone from 16.2 per cent to 22.4 per cent. The Annapolis Valley has gone from 7.9 per cent to 13.5 per cent. It has doubled in a year. Clearly-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am awfully sorry. The Hon. Member is on his second supplementary. That second supplementary is very long and he still has another preamble. His enumeration of statistics has nothing to do with asking the question.


David Edward Crombie: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In light of those statistics, it is clear that the Government's programs have not worked. I would like to ask the Minister what new intiatives he is going to take.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: First of all, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking only about high unemployment figures. I notice that he has not mentioned the substantial trade surplus figures which were also announced in the last couple of days. In spite of a lot of objections from some of colleagues on his side of the House with regard to the Export Development Corporation, this



November 5, 1982

Government made a decision two years ago to get into the export subsidy business to create jobs for Canadians right across the country. That is one of the reasons why we have a record trade surplus in Canada this year.


IMMIGRATION
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to get down to some specifics. Does the Minister know that Atomic Energy is laying off qualified Canadians while at the same time keeping foreigners on work permits on staff? May I ask the Minister if he will investigate this matter as it does not do much to encourage Canadians to trust this administration?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 am always prepared to investigate any matter that is brought forward by a Member of Parliament. The Hon. Member, being an immigration critic in this House, should know full well that we have established a very firm policy. As far as employment is concerned, the first choice and opportunity for any job goes to a Canadian. We do not authorize any employment or immigration visa until an employer has tested right across Canada to see if there is an available Canadian for the job. In fact, when the immigration levels were established just last week, we put a total restriction on workers from overseas to ensure that Canadian workers have the first chance. This demonstrates that we are giving encouragement to Canadians to get those jobs first.


John Horton McDermid: The Minister did not answer the question as to whether he will investigate that claim.


EMPLOYMENT OF NON-NATIONALS BY PETRO-CANADA
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I want to go on. 1 was interested in the Minister's comments. While he is at it, will the Minister investigate why his Department allowed workers to come from the southern United States into Montreal to do a clean-up job at PetroCan's refinery in Montreal, when equipment and trained Canadian manpower were available to do the job, in fact in Sarnia, Ontario? This Government asks for trust while these trained Canadians stand by waiting for employment. It allows foreigners to come in on work permits and do jobs Canadians are trained, willing and able to do. Will he investigate that particular situation? Both of these involve Crown corporations.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think it would be a serious mistake for the Hon. Member to take one or two cases where he may have information and generalize a total policy. He
Oral Questions
knows full well, and we have examined the issue many times in committees of this House, that we have established a very firm policy concerning work permits which are not given to outside workers if there is a Canadian available for the job. If there have been transgressions against that policy, specific circumstances, I will look into them and correct them, but the general policy holds true that Canadians get the first opportunity.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the Minister confirm that the RCMP are investigating, or have investigated, a break-in at his Department in Place Du Portage over the past weekend and, if so, will he tell this House if the confidential papers concerning the PetroCan takeover of BP retail outlets are held in the area where the break-in occurred and, if they are, will he assure us they were not tampered with in any way during that break-in?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I shall have to check this statement. I do not know about this.


INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Jennifer Cossitt: I appreciate the response, Madam Speaker. If these documents were tampered with, would the Minister also explain to this House why the municipal police were not called into investigate further, and why the RCMP are conducting this investigation?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I have noted the Hon. Member's second question and 1 shall look into the matter.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Unemployment today is up again at 1.4 million. This is the same level as for fully one-half of the years of the Great Depression. The response of the Government seems to be to appoint a commission of inquiry into economic matters. How can the Minister justify the appointment of the same people who got us into this economic mess, as a substitute for real economic strategy?

November 5, 1982
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, obviously, I have no comment to make on the speculation to which the Hon. Member refers, but I will refer him to the fact that, for 12 weeks in a row now, we have seen a decline in the bank rate. We have also seen a decline in the inflation rate. Which will lead, as it has led in the past, to lower interest rates. It will help stimulate business in this country, it will help the people with mortgages, and it will help the construction industry. I remind him that the housing industry association is now predicting some 150,000 housing starts next year, compared to much lower rates this year. So there are hopeful times on the horizon. The oil and gas industry has forecast a very good year in 1983. Some even predict it will be a better year in 1983 than the record year in 1980.
My consultations in the United States indicate that investment houses there, for instance, foresee a better year for Canadian oil and gas in 1983 than in the U.S.
The Hon. Member asks about unemployment. Indeed, this is going to create jobs for Canadians. If the oil and gas industry, and the housing industry keep on, as is being forecast by the industries themselves, that is going to create jobs. We are going to generate jobs by lower interest rates and more activity in the private sector. That is what we need, jobs of a permanent nature. We will do our best as a Government to help those who are in need, and to create temporary jobs to ease us over this extremely difficult period. But things are happening at the present time which are encouraging.


ECONOMIC STRATEGY
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the Minister seems to describe as signs of recovery those which are indicators of the recession. An official of the Department of Employment has indicated that half the jobs lost over the last year are gone forever, yet the Government's response in the Minister's economic statement has been the NEED Program which will simply recycle people back into the unemployment insurance system after 20 weeks of work, while Unemployment Insurance Premiums go up, which is a drag on the economy. When is the Minister going to adopt an economic strategy which really works for people, rather than continuing to dampen the economy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I covered that quite extensively in my statement of last week and I invite my hon. friend to read it if he did not listen to it at that time. I indicated at that time there were a number of measures the Government could take, and was taking, to help those most in need in this difficult time, but the thrust of my economic statement and the thrust of the economic policy of this Government is to create the environment whereby the private sector is going to be the engine of the recovery. This is what we have been working on ever since my predecessor introduced the six and five program on June 28 of this year.
I wish the Hon. Member's party would support that program because it has produced very good effects-


Mr. Deans:: More unemployment.


Marc Lalonde: -and it will produce even better effects. As far as the broad issue is concerned, I remind my hon. friend that, even in the United States, and in Europe at the present time they are also experiencing a recession. There are 30 million unemployed in the OECD countries at the present time. We are part of this very difficult world we are living in, and we will do everything we can to make sure that Canada is not going to suffer as much as it could otherwise.


JUSTIFICATION FOR GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I wonder how the Minister can justify a Canada which has become a nation of part-time workers, a Canada in which we have lost 500,000 permanent jobs, a Canada in which job creation means 20 weeks of work to requalify for unemployment insurance-when people need permanent full-time work? How can Canadians trust a Government that acts like that?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we are not trying to justify the situation but to correct it. That is the government's role, and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to use all the resources at our disposal and those we can develop with the private sector, labour and management and the provincial governments, so that Canada will experience the economic recovery we all need. My hon. colleague should realize, however, that the present world situation is such that even the United States is experiencing the highest level of unemployment it has ever known. So that is the situation, and we will all have to make a joint effort to create an economic environment that will provide the necessary stimulation, instead of merely criticizing as the Hon. Member is doing.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, I think everyone in Quebec was able to watch the Quebec Minister of Transport make his statement on television, and my question to the minister is simple: Further to the introduction of Bill S-31 in the Senate, can the minister inform us whether or not this legislation will cause Quebecair to go bankrupt and whether the Quebec Minister of Transport has perhaps hit on this legislation as a way of extricating himself from a proposition in which the province of Quebec has invested tens of millions of dollars, and I am referring to Quebecair?


November 5, 1982


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is a very good investigator. It is public knowledge that well over a year ago, we were about to see the first stage of a merger between Nordair and Quebecair. At that time, the Quebec government intervened to prevent this, for political reasons, and invested $15 million in Quebecair which it considered a commercially viable operation, an investment which today does not have the same value as it did at the time. Now, the Quebec Minister of Transport is trying to blame us for the decision it made then, and the telegram he sent us today should be seen in that light. The fact is that there is no fundamental difference between Section 15(1) of the Aeronautics Act, which goes back to 1977 and prohibits transfer of control of an air carrier to a provincial government, and Bill S-31, which prohibits a provincial government from holding more than 10 per cent of the shares of an air or other carrier. There is no basic difference between the two sets of legislation.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, at this time last week the Minister of Transport said he would give us a status report on the Nordair strike. Given this morning's awful unemployment figures 1 think he will agree it is shameful that lack of action should keep out on the street those who want to work. Given the fact that the union has turned down the latest offer from Nordair by a majority of 83 per cent, when will the Government move to end this very lengthy and inconvenient work stoppage?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker I did indeed look into the matter and found out-and my hon. friend is aware of it as well, if not better than I am- that this is an intra-union debate. The same union represents both the white collar and the blue collar workers. Efforts have been made to decertify the union by an appeal to the Canada Labour Relations Board, which the Board refused. This is the imbroglio which has been created, and really the labour side should try to solve it because that is the key to the resolution of the problem itself.


APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR REQUESTED
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could put my supplementary to the Minister of Labour and ask him what is the holdup. Are the union leaders sacrificing the interests of the 550 clerical workers out there, or is Nordair deliberately prolonging the strike because it is not too profitable these days to fly these east-west routes? What is the holdup, and will the Minister appoint a mediator to clear it up?
Oral Questions


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, this is a situation we have been following with great interest and concern since the strike began on July 26. Three days ago a vote took place and the company's offer was rejected by the union. There are at the present time no indications that a mediator has been requested by both sides. But I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that mediator Waller stands available at any time, as soon as both sides request the services of a mediator.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Now that the hostage-taking incident in Stony Mountain Penitentiary is over, can the Minister bring the House up to date on what methods his officials will use in trying to get to the bottom of what is becoming a very, very serious problem in our prisons right across this country, that is, Madam Speaker, the whole question of over-crowding, and the question of safety, which you keep hearing more often than not from prison guards?
There seem to be two major concerns but, if there are others, can the Minister indicate them to the House, and what does his department intend to do about the matter?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I regard the hostage-taking incident at Stony Mountain as a serious one. A special inquiry is under way there now and I would not want to comment on the causes of this incident until 1 have that report. However, I think it would be reassuring for the Hon. Member opposite, and for all Members, to know that in spite of the tragic nature of so many of these hostage-taking incidents, and the number of them, there are fewer this year than there have been in any year since 1974. I do not accept the present situation as being desirable and I insist that we learn, and improve, on every occasion, our methods of dealing with hostage-taking incidents.
I do not think it is fair to say the problem is getting out of hand or that it is worse than it has been in the past. In fact we have learned a great deal from hostage-taking incidents, and I think we have done a lot to avoid some of the past causes of hostage-taking incidents.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, the Minister has not really told us anything that we did not already know about what the Government is doing.


TERMS OF REFERENCE OF INVESTIGATION
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. What kind of investigative inquiry is taking place in Stony Mountain? What are some of the

November 5, 1982
Oral Questions
rules-what are the parameters of the investigators, whoever they may be? I assume that people within the Minister's Department are looking into this. When does the Minister expect a report to be made, either to him or to the House, so that the Canadian people can begin to try to understand what the investigators, the authorities and the inmates have to grapple with in a system that seems to be becoming very, very shaky indeed? What is causing these incidents to occur from time to time?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, two types of investigation are virtually automatic. In the first case the police are called in because crimes or offences have been committed. I would remind the House that a hostage taking is a violation of the Criminal Code. The police come in and they are completely independent from the Government, from the system and from the correctional service. They have full access to everyone, and they lay charges when charges are justified. They also make recommendations when those are justified.
The second string is the work of the Inspector General. The purpose of his investigation is not to find fault with anyone- that is left to the police-the purpose of his investigation is to make recommendations for dealing with the type of situation that gave rise to a particular hostage taking. In order to be effective, confidentiality applies to the work and the report of the Inspector General. I will be prepared to make a statement when I have the report of the Inspector General on the Stony Mountain incident. I can assure the Hon. Member that, where action is justified and can be taken to reassure the surrounding community, which is the most important thing, to reassure the members of the staff, even to reassure the inmates about their personal safety and security in the face of the violence that caused these incidents, then I will be prepared to make a statement about it.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance concerning his plans for upgrading the railways of Canada and, according to him, for the creation of some 400,000 jobs by 1991. Since for years the railways have been eliminating an average of 5,500 jobs per year, and in view of the statement made yesterday by the Chairman of CN, Mr. Jack Horner, that there will be even more lay-offs on the railway, will the Minister secure a commitment from the railways that, in view of the public investment of $400 million for this year alone, there will be no further reduction in the size of the work force employed on Canada's railways?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker, this is not a promise that we can make. Speaking about CN, the Crown corportions of Canada were not created
to achieve social objectives, but as business and commercial operations. Second, the principles under which Crown corporations would keep employees over a period of time when it is not needed, is not one that is accepted by the Government. There were instances, though, when this was done, particularly when the Government moved to create a fund to help a rationalization of a certain service. This is not the case here. The principle invoked by the question is not one that is generally acceptable, however.


Mark Willson Rose: With the conditions that exist in Canada at this time, perhaps it might be advisable to review that principle, Madam Speaker.


LACK OF GOVERNMENT EQUITY
Mark Willson Rose: What concerns many of us is that the railways will take Government handouts and reduce their own investments by an amount equal to those handouts.
If the Minister cannot guarantee job security on the railways, will he at least take steps to prevent the Government from squandering millions more on the railways without a dime's worth of equity for the public investment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, there have been a number of instances when the Government counted on the railways, the CN in particular, to rationalize a service, and such rationalization was substantially detrimental to the labour force. In these instances the Government has intervened and put an amount of money on the table to facilitate that rationalization. These were exceptional circumstances, however.
In the present circumstances, the principle invoked by the question is not accepted by the Government because Crown corporations were created to be part of the commercial operation of Canada; they were not created as extensions of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. According to press reports, an announcement will be made of a special Royal Commission to deal with the economy. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if this is true and, if so, if he is at liberty to reveal its membership?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am happy that the Hon. Member has shown interest in this matter. I can assure the Opposition that, as far as I know, the interest is purely spontaneous. I am glad to have an occasion to answer this in the House because it is a matter of some embarrassment to me that this leak has occurred, and
November 5, 1982

I am sure it is of great embarrassment to Mr. Donald Macdonald who has been approached to be the Chairman of such a Royal Commission.
With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I am happy to give what details I can of the Royal Commission. I want to assure the House that it had been my intention to make an announcement in a statement on motions, when the Opposition would have had a chance to answer questions. This is not possible now. I am happy-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad they are so amused over there, Madam Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: We are.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am certainly glad that the Liberal Members are more interested in acquiring knowledge on the creation of a Royal Commission, the purpose of which would be to inquire into the economic prospects in Canada in the middle and longer term, and to look at the institutional arrangements which might be necessary for the strengthening of that economic union.
If the Hon. Member has a supplementary question I will be very happy to answer it, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INQUIRY RESPECTING TERMS OF REFERENCE
David Michael Collenette: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, he did not answer my question in its totality, if 1 may borrow that phrase.
Since the Prime Minister has confirmed his plan to announce the appointment of this Royal Commission, could he tell the House some of the terms of reference for the membership of that Royal Commission?


Mr. Beatty:: What about John Turner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the terms of reference, they are going to be submitted to the Governor General early this afternoon. Until the document has acquired his signature, obviously I am not free to make those terms of reference known. I would be happy to have them tabled in the House sometime this afternoon, if the House will give consent.
1 can even say that, to add to my embarrassment, I have not even consulted my colleagues in Cabinet or caucus on this project, although the Deputy Prime Minister knows about it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Tell Lalonde.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that this announcement and the answer to the questions are being greeted so lightly by the Opposition. I think this Royal Commission will be extremely important, in terms of the change in thinking regarding the future of the country. I hope it will play
Oral Questions
a role as important as that played by the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission in the years after that was produced.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I wish to tell the Hon. Member that no other member has been approached. The Chairman is the only one who has indicated acceptance, and he was in the process of consulting other participants. No doubt that is how-


Erik Nielsen: That is a really short answer, isn't it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, the Opposition House Leader-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister but I think he had a chance to answer that question adequately.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Rising unemployment tends to bring about an increase in crimes of violence, including wife battering. Could the Minister inform the House how much the incidence of wife beating has increased over the last six months?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, first of all, on behalf of many of my colleagues, I would like to congratulate my opposition colleague on his efforts to speak French, because it is certainly not easy. That being said, I would have preferred receiving notice of his question, because I would need statistics which unfortunately I do not have here before me. We have enclosed an insert with Family Allowance cheques which, I believe, has been fairly well received by Canadians and which tries to advise on how to cope with the issue of battered wives, that is, what people should do in cases where there is violence in the family. As for statistics covering the last six months, 1 will provide them as soon as possible.


RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the minister responsible for the status of women. She will know that some five months ago the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs recommended the holding of a federal-provincial conference for the express purpose of dealing with the issue of battered wives. Could the Minister report to the House
20446

November 5, 1982
Oral Questions
the progress that has been made on the holding of that conference, what communications were made to the provinces, and hopefully the date on which that conference will occur?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member had followed events carefully, he would be aware that the various Ministers within the federal government have already agreed to hold meetings with their provincial counterparts, because this covers a very wide spectrum. I have had the assurance of a number of Ministers, including the Solicitor General and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that those discussions will take place.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Also at this time I wish to congratulate him on his appointment to this new position. There have been reports in the press and on Newsradio that the Kirby Report recommends the setting up of yet another Crown Corporation called "Phoenix", for the purpose of taking over the management of four large fishing companies in Atlantic Canada. Since this type of action is really an indictment of his predecessor, whose licensing policies, quota restrictions on Canadians, and marketing policies were unjust and unworkable, when will the Minister be making a statement in the House outlining the Government's policies as they apply to this important primary industry?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say something to my hon. friend. I have met a lot of people in the last month, many of them from the industry sector. Not one of them has told me that the problems this sector is experiencing at the moment are due to any policy of my predecessor. On the contrary, he succeeded in obtaining the 200-mile zone which has been a tremendous boost to our fishery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre De Bané: I will just remind the Hon. Member that, when the Minister took over the Department, our fishermen on the Atlantic coast had a catch of 400,000 tonnes-


Mr. Mayer:: Order.


Pierre De Bané: This year it will be 800,000 tonnes.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre De Bané: As for any indictment-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre De Bané: -of his policies, I would inform-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Even I realize that the Hon. Minister is not really answering the question but giving other information which might be extremely valuable but is not exactly relevant to the question. I would not want to express any opinion on that, except that I want to tell the Hon. Minister that he must be brief.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member was speaking about an indictment of my predecessor. Therefore, concerning the question put about Government intervention in the fishing sector, this summer when Fishery Products Limited decided to close the plant in St. Anthony, where 700 people were employed, because the company was losing money, my predecessor decided to take over that plant. I am happy to report to the House that the plant will be making a slight profit and the 700 people are working.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, we, in Atlantic Canada, recognize that the Government did establish a 200-mile limit. But what seems to be at issue here are the quotas and the people who have been permitted to fish within that limit while Canadians at times are required to stay ashore. That is the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the Government's fisheries policies, from what the minister has just said, have not been working in recent years, otherwise the Government would not have had to intervene. These policies have inhibited Canadian fishing activities, both offshore and inshore, through restrictive and confusing fishing quotas and licences. Therefore, will the minister give consideration to establishing a joint parliamentary committee composed of Members of Parliament who have some expertise in this field and who represent large fishing ridings for the purpose of discussing current problems in the hope that this parliamentary task force, which I would remind the Government and the Prime Minister will not cost the country anything, could come up with some positive recommendations for the resolution of the present difficulties?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, of course our Standing Committee on Fishery and Forestry is free to study whatever problem that Members would like to discuss.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre De Bané: But I think at the moment what our fishermen would like is not more discussion, but action. The Hon. Member will see in the next few months that the Government of Canada is giving leadership to that very important sector of our economy.
November 5, 1982


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who was in her seat two or three minutes ago. She seems to have gone out for a smoke.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: I do not know whether the Minister is in the lobby and is coming into the House, but I did give her notice of my question.


An Hon. Member:: Here she is.


Neil Young: I see her now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, could the Minister confirm to this House that she told the Liberal convention meeting yesterday that the elderly in Canada need an increase of at least $25 a month to their pensions but that the Government will not give it to them? Will the Minister also confirm that she and the Government have now abandoned the elderly of Canada and, in effect, have hung them out to dry?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I may have sinned a bit while in China and smoked a little for three weeks, but I want to tell the Hon. Member that I have stopped once again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: I have to deny two aspects of the Hon. Member's question, which I find very detrimental. 1 repeated the Government commitment to seniors, in particular single pensioners, receiving the GIS, that as soon as we can we will find that money. Everybody knows what the situation is right now in this country. I reiterated that commitment, and I reiterated the commitment to pension reform. I said that the Green Paper will be released shortly. It will be a green paper with concrete peoposals for discussion by various groups in Canada in order that, as soon as the economy picks up sufficiently, we will be ready to move with pension reform that all Canadians want to have.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same Minister. We have heard that same story before, at least for the last 12 months. It is obvious to me and this House that the Minister is quite good at making all kinds of pious statements about the needs of the elderly, yet she tolerated capping increases in pensions to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in the last budget. She is even reported as being in favour of ending universality of old age pensions. Will the Minister now put an end to this hypocrisy and offer her resignation to this House?
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: No, never, Madam Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for international trade. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the beef export issue brought about by the anticipated closure of the American beef market to our Canadian beef. This is due to the filling of their global quota in the United States for beef. It is a situation which will occur in the very near future.
The Minister will also be aware of the voluntary arrangements agreed to by beef producers in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, with American producers. Would the Minister indicate if current beef imports into Canada are presently being monitored under the Export and Import Permits Act? Would he assure our Canadian beef producers that beef imports for this year will not exceed 142 million pounds, of which 118 million pounds is from offshore, that is, Australia and New Zealand?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member brings a matter of some concern to the attention of the House, but I think I can give him good assurance that the Government has taken firm steps to deal with it. Due to the situation in the United States, an agreement was entered into by my predecessor, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Agriculture, with their counterparts in the United States. That agreement would limit the amount of Canadian beef going to the American market this year to approximately 121 million pounds. We are now at about 116 million pounds, which makes it obvious that full utilization will be made of that quantity.
Since the American restrictions also apply to other countries such as Australia and New Zealand, there was the danger of some of that excess being diverted into the Canadian market. We have established a system of beef and veal imports, and we are very confident that the amounts that will therefore come into the country in the relevant time period will not be above the 120 million to 130 million pounds that is established under the Canadian Beef Act. The situation is being carefully monitored. We believe that the situation is well contained.


BALANCE REMAINING IN QUOTAS
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I am sure the Minister knows that the concern of Canadian beef producers is that for the balance of this year only, surplus beef may be redirected by the boat load-especially from Australia-into ports like Montreal and Vancouver. Could the Minister indicate what the balance of the quotas available might be for the rest of this calendar year, especially for Australia?

November 5, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the Hon. Member that I have already said that we are monitoring the amount that is coming in, on a daily basis. If those imports from the areas that the Hon. Member mentions increase significantly, they can then be limited under the provisions of the Meat Import Act. We are prepared to take those actions in order to protect the Canadian beef industry.


Madam Speaker:: I find the House very nervous today. I wonder if some historical events are not insidiously influencing the conduct of Members. Do any Members remember that today is Guy Fawkes Day?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, certainly we have not forgotten that it is Guy Fawkes Day, but I think that he is over at the Chateau Laurier at the moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the three hundred and thirtieth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) on Thursday, November 4, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rose during Motions under S.O. 43 with respect to a point of order concerning the words used by the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) on a motion proposed under Standing Order 43. You will recall that I asked to be given a copy of a transcript of those remarks. I have not received such a transcript. Since I may have heard the English translation wrongly or, indeed, if the words were used-the Hon. Member has the opportunity to look at Hansard between now and the printing of Hansard for today-I think it would be prudent for me to withhold raising the point of order until next Monday.
I have, however, also heard from another Member of Parliament who said that he thought he heard words during the presentation of that motion under Standing Order 43 that might have offended his privileges as a Member. It may give rise to questions by other Members once we have examined the record.
If it is indeed necessary for me to raise the question on Monday, I will also be raising the question of the proper time at which to raise questions or points of order dealing with unparliamentary language. I will be briefly presenting an argument to the Chair to be made under Citation 323, subparagraph (2), of the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne where it sets forth:
(2) The proper time to raise such a point of order-
That is, dealing with unparliamentary language.
-is when the words are used and not afterwards.


Madam Speaker:: I think we have to wait until the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) raises a point of order on this particular motion. The Hon. Member for Yukon indicates that he is reserving the matter and that he will look at Hansard and may raise it on Monday. Therefore, before it is raised I do not think we should discuss it.


Dennis Dawson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a fact that I got carried away and may have used the expression "intellectual dishonesty". I do not know about the word "intellectual", Madam Speaker, but following consultations with my colleagues, I feel I must withdraw the word "dishonesty". As to the word "hypocrisy", 1 had looked it up in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms this morning, but I am now advised that it is unparliamentary language; so, as a good Parliamentarian, I want to advise the House that I withdraw these two words, although I feel that for all practical purposes, the motion I have moved under Standing Order 43 adequately reflects what we feel, my colleagues and I.


Madam Speaker:: I suggest, therefore, that the matter is closed, the Hon. Member having withdrawn words which he feels may have offended the House.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, as 1 was mentioned in the motion of the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) today, I would like to study his comments to see whether I have also been covered by his apology. If not, 1 will be raising the matter on Monday.


Madam Speaker:: I simply want to remind the Hon. Member that unless some unparliamentary language was used, whatever was said about the Hon. Member has been dealt with by the House. Therefore, perhaps the Hon. Member might also want to consider what I am saying now, because then there would, of course, be no point in raising the matter in the House.
November 5, 1982


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question with regard to the Business of the House which I would like to raise at this point, if I may. There is a practice which has manifested itself over the last few days and which appears to be growing. It is that legislation which has considerable public interest, over which Members of the House of Commons have expressed concern, is being introduced in the Senate for discussion first, rather than the House of Commons.
I want to ask the Hon. House Leader for the Government (Mr. Pinard) if he would not reconsider this practice now before we get carried away with the appointed Senate dealing with what is, in essence, public business prior to the House of Commons having an opportunity even to debate it.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I do no think this question relates to the business of the House but it is entirely in order. When a bill is introduced in the Senate, it must subsequently be considered in- the House before it has force of law and before it can be given royal assent. This is not new and we are not creating a precedent. Now, if my hon. colleague does not agree with the procedure, since he sits on a special committee on parliamentary reform, he could bring up the matter and try to convince his colleagues. However, I do not think the matter is relevant to the business of the House for the next few days nor that it should be raised at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my twenty colleagues, I have the honour to present the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure.
I would like to add that-

This report is unanimous and is in both of Canada's official languages.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editors Note: For report referred to above, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Order Paper Questions LABOUR CANADA


TABLING OF TASK FORCE REPORT ON MICROELECTRONICS AND EMPLOYMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour to table copies of the Labour Canada Task Force Report on Microelectronics and Employment, in both official languages, respectively entitled: La microelectronique au service de la collectivite-In the Chips: Opportunities, People, Partnerships:


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,038, 4,178, 4,203, 4,254 and 4,375.


Mr. Rose: 1.	For December, 1981, how many packages of Canadian Home Insulation Program (CHIP) and Canadian Oil Substitution Program (COSP) request forms were sent out to retailers of solid fuel-burning appliances, solar heating equipment and propane fueled heating equipment?
2.	Were the packages individually distributed from Ottawa or shipped in bulk to regional distribution centres in each Province before final delivery?
3.	(a) What was the distribution cost for each package of request forms (b) what was the total cost of the mailing program?
4.	Was Loomis Courier Service used to distribute the material instead of the Canada Post Corporation and, if so (a) for what reason (b) which government official was responsible for the decision?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1.	For December, 1981, a total of 112,500 request forms were sent to 914 retailers of solid fuel-burning appliances, solar heating equipment and propane fueled heating equipment, all in the Province of British Columbia.
2.	The packages were shipped in bulk to Vancouver where they were distributed individually.
3.	(a) Distribution cost per package, $8.75. (b) Total distribution cost, $7,997.50.
4.	Yes. (a) Loomis Courier Service was used to distribute these packages in order to meet a deadline, (b) The instructions for delivery were given by the Canada Oil Substitution Program Directorate.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Is there a general RCMP policy concerning payments to witnesses in criminal trials and, if so (a) what are the details (b) does the policy involve payments beyond expenses incurred in connection with court appearances?

November 5, 1982
Order Paper Questions
2.	Is there a general RCMP policy concerning payments to informers and, if so, what are the details?
3.	Is it the policy of the RCMP to withhold from the criminal courts the fact that the accused persons are paid informers of the RCMP?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) Witnesses called by the Crown in criminal cases are entitled to fees and expenses in accordance with the tariffs set by provincial laws or regulations. See also payments to informers in part 2 below. RCMP policy provides for compliance with the schedules and tariffs including Section 772 of the Criminal Code to facilitate these payments.
(b) No, the general policy does not involve payments beyond expenses incurred in connection with court appearances. There is, however, additional policy which deals specifically with the Force's Witness Protection Program and is separate from those witness entitlements provided for by provincial laws or regulations. Payments made in this Program pertain only to relocation and cost of living expenses for a witness and family should the life of the witness or his/her family become endangered as a result of co-operation with the Crown or agreement to testify. The payment of moneys or benefits are not authorized to any person simply in return for their testimony.
2.	Yes, there is RCMP policy concerning payments to informers. This policy deals with the following:
(a)	the amount of payments: These payments are authorized at varying levels of authority within the RCMP in accordance with Treasury Board directives;
(b)	the criteria for payments: In each case the criteria for payment is established by the levels of authority responsible for authorizing payment. They must be satisfied that the expenses are fair and just in relation to the assistance rendered or information received:
(c)	the selection of recipients: Not all informants or witnesses receive payments. Payments occur only in those circumstances which dictate the need.
In the event of a paid informer being a witness, Force practice requires, without exception, full disclosure of all details to the Court.
In Security Service matters, it is not in the interests of maintaining internal security to make public policy concerning payments to informers.
3.	No.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of Petro-Canada or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Petro-Canada reports as follows: The requested information is considered to be of a managerial and administrative nature between Petro-Canada and the Corporation's employees and, therefore, cannot be released to the public.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department and, if so, are they embodied in a Code of Conduct or other specific document and is the Code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the Department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Pierre De Bané: 1. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department. Standards of behavior for employees of the Department are outlined in the Conflict of Interest Guidelines and the Personnel Management Manual which are available to the public and in any other directive or policy issued by Treasury Board as the employer.
The Conflict of Interest Guideliens deal with the disclosure of matters such as business or other interests which might be in conflict with official business, and also deal with other related subjects. Directives or policies issued by Treasury Board as the employer pertain to subjects such as political partisanship, discrimination, sexual harassment, public money and property, disclosure of official information.
2. DFO does not keep records of this nature in such a way as to render the information easily accessible. The information requested would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1982-83 (b) 1983-84 (i) how many persons will be employed by the Petroleum Incentives Administration and at what salary ranges (ii) what will be the total cost of the PIA, including employee benefits and administrative costs?
2.	How many other employees of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will be involved in regulating the oil and gas industry over the fiscal year (a) 1982-83 (b) 1983-84?
3.	What is the projected cost, including benefits and office expenses, of this regulation and how much of the cost is defrayed directly by user-fees or other charges?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
(a)	(i) 1982-83	-434 person-years
	(ii) 1982-83	and retroactive back payments for -$2,012,981,850 1981-82
(b)	(i) 1983-84	-446 person-years
	(ii) 1983-84	-$ 1,190,985,110 (projected)

November 5, 1982

Salary ranges for 1982-83
	Categories	Salary range
CR	Clerical and Regulatory	$11,619-$28,520AS	Administrative Services	$20,462-$48,500SCY	Secretary	$11,732-$23,866EX	Executive	$43,300-$72,300CO	Commerce	$22,157-$54,326SI	Social Science Support	$12,200-$46,354AU	Auditing	$25,098-$54,890ES	Economics, Sociology	$12,410-$58,039LA	Law	$16,613-$52,943OM	Organization and Methods	$16,680-$45,400CS	Computer Systems Administration	$16,680-$55,196PM	Program Administration	$16,215-$42,9192. (a)	1982-83 -Department of Energy, Mines and Resources	- 76 person-yearsNational Energy Board	-447 person-years(b)	1983-84 -Department of Energy, Mines and Resources	-119 person-yearsNational Energy Board	-458 person-years3.	1982-83 -Department of Energy, Mines and Resources	-$ 4,373,000National Energy Board	-$21,237,0001983-84 -Department of Energy, Mines and Resources	-$ 9,108,000National Energy Board Users fees	-$22,053,0001982-83 -Department of Energy, Mines and Resources	-$ 6,511,000National Energy Board	-$ 400,0001983-84 -Department of Energy, Mines	-$11,500,000and Resources	(projected)National Energy Board	-$ 1,055,000
(projected)


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Cyril Keeper: That this House condemns the government for their incompetent management of the unemployment insurance system and their mishandling and misdirection of employment programs:
(a)	by creating and tolerating long and unconscionable delays in payment of earned benefits to claimants;
(b)	by refusing to provide extended benefits or jobs to the growing thousands of unemployed whose benefits are expiring each month;
(c)	by raising unemployment insurance premiums by 40 to 53% at a time when U1C services are declining and in disrepute; and
Supply
finally, condemns the government for fumbling a growing myriad of uncoordinated hit and miss job creation programs and its consequent failure to begin to provide some meaningful employment and stable incomes for over 1.4 million jobless Canadians.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is very important that the House of Commons begin to deal with the whole question involving the unemployment insurance system and people who are in desperate need of employment. There has been a complete lack of economic policy by the Government of the day. Today the unemployment insurance statistics indicate a new record of unemployment since the great depression. I want to put some of those statistics on the record so that people will be aware of exactly what we mean when we say that unemployment is at the highest level since the depression.
This is the fourteenth consecutive month of decline in jobs. Over the last month we lost another 24,000 jobs and we have lost half a million jobs since October last year. Of the jobs which have disappeared over the last month, 48,000 were full-time jobs. Many people have been forced into part-time employment, which tends artificially to keep the numbers up.
The decline in jobs has been widespread. It has gone through the manufacturing sector, which experienced a loss of
25,000	jobs over the last month, and through the construction sector, with losses amounting to 17,000 jobs over the last month. In light of the comments of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) during question period today that somehow the drop in interest rates which is taking place is an indicator of future recovery, I would respond by saying the drop is the result of such a deep and long lasting recession. He claimed that the drop in interest rates would stimulate construction, but that clearly is not evident from the statistics which show that we have lost some 17,000 jobs in construction over the last month and another 15,000 jobs in trades. Unemployment continues at record levels without abatement.
It is very important to consider exactly what that means. While we might carry on some debate over whether to describe the situation as a recession or a depression, I think that all could agree that what we are living through and what we have been living through over the last year is clearly an economic crisis in the order of the last great depression. Therefore, 1 would call this recession "the great recession". It is long lasting, it is fundamental and it is hurting Canadian people like no other economic crisis has hurt the Canadian people since the great depression.
Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had the nerve to stand up in the House of Commons, in response to what appeared to be a set-up question from a backbencher, to announce the creation of a royal commission. We know that in 1949 and 1953 the Liberal Party went the route of a royal commission in order to try to save its political skin. We know that a former member of the Liberal Party became involved in one of these commissions and eventually became Minister of Finance. Therefore, a royal commission which is to study the economy over the next year, shall we say-but who knows- will obviously be an excuse for lack of action. More than that, I suspect it may be a mechanism for political succession. The gentleman who has been appointed to head this royal commis-

November 5, 1982
Supply
sion which, ostensibly, should be independent, one Mr. Macdonald, has been mentioned by some as an aspiring leadership candidate for the Liberal Party when the Prime Minister finally steps down. I just wonder whether this is not a platform enabling him to go across the country to hear people's opinions on the economy so that he can be in line, in first place in succession, when the time comes. I suspect the Government's response to unemployment and to the economic crisis is more political than economic. Indeed, that is shameful and regretful.
The great depression brought about some fundamental political, social and economic change. It moved the North American economy from a laissez-faire attitude to an economic approach to management of the economy which involved activism on the part of government. It involved direct intervention of government into the economy and established social welfare programs which are still with us today and are constantly under threat. The last economic crisis led to some fundamental social and economic change, to some innovation, and eventually to an economic recovery.
What is lacking in the present economic crisis, this great recession, is fundamental innovation in the economic area. This is really what must take place if we are to respond in a realistic manner to the shocking unemployment which exists in Canada today.
We must display courage and move beyond the simple use of fiscal and monetary policies to some measure of setting national economic goals. The only way that we in the country will be able to pull together in order to provide employment for all who need it and want it is by sitting down together as a nation and setting some national economic goals. The countries in the world which have done best, even in these troubled times, are those that have gone that route. It is time for the Canadian Government and the Canadian people to move beyond a simple reliance upon fiddling with fiscal and monetary policies.
After the innovations of the great depression, the economic solutions of those days were often associated with the name of the economist Keynes. After the recovery and some economic growth many people began to feel somewhat smug. We thought we really knew the answers to all economic problems and that a depression could never occur again. We thought we had the technical answers and the know-how to solve the problems.
Clearly the great depression will not repeat itself, but we have another real economic crisis. It did not just start yesterday or this morning; it has been around for some time. For example, we could date it with the oil embargo of 1974 and with the new economic problems which arose thereafter, problems of rising unemployment at the same time as rising inflation, problems which demonstrated that the economic remedies of the past were just not capable of coping with the economic problems of the country. It is only now that it is becoming clear how deep the economic crisis is and how inadequate the measures of the Canadian Government are to
deal with the crisis. It is time for innovation in economic and social matters.
Rather than innovation Canadians are experiencing a reaction. It is a reaction to the difficult problems and to the inadequacy of governmental response to the problems. Now we have a Government which is totally discredited, which is not doing anything real about employment, which is calling a depressed economy a sign of recovery. In the community there is a reaction to the lack of effective intervention by the Government into the economy. There is a conservative reaction which is often called neo-conservatism.
In his latest economic statement the Minister of Finance adopted the same approach. The reaction to the ineptness of the Government's economic approach has discredited its role and led to the conclusion by many that the way to solve economic problems is to take government out of the economy and leave it to the private sector. We have begun to hear this line not only from the Conservatives' but also from the Liberals in their latest economic statement. They are mirror images of one another. They want to leave economic recovery to the private sector and to the United States. They want to wait for the American economy to recover and hope that we can somehow hitch our wagon to theirs.
Canadians are disillusioned with this failure to come to grips with the real problems facing them. We want a Government which is willing to deal with real problems and find real solutions. Also we want a Government which has the courage to implement, to experiment, to attempt in a humane manner, to meet the needs of all Canadians and to ensure that all Canadians have employment and decent incomes.
I want to examine more closely the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. It has been called an economic statement, but it was clearly a budget. There were enough items in it to indicate that it was a budget. The Minister simply took the opportunity to fly it under another flag. The centrepiece of the economic statement was called the NEED Program. It was a job creation Program. The Government claimed it would allocate some $500 million to create some
60,000	jobs over a period of 18 months. I think from experience we must examine more closely what the Government has had to say, what it claimed it was doing. We have been disillusioned in the past as it has made announcement after announcement and there were no changes in the unemployment statistics. The fact is that we now have close to two million Canadians looking for work.
The rule of thumb with regard to employment creation accepted by most labour analysts, including officials in the Department of Employment, is that $500 million will create some 25,000 full-time, one-year jobs. The Government is talking about creating 25,000 jobs at a time when there are 1.4 million people unemployed according to the statistics.
This is clearly inadequate tokenism. It is even worse than that because the Government does not really intend to create full-time jobs. It appears that what it intends to do is create a series of part-time jobs in co-operation with the Provinces which will provide a revolving door between unemployment
November 5, 1982

insurance, short-term work of 20 weeks, for example, and then back to unemployment insurance. This is a very cruel and callous approach to unemployment. It is not a real solution, yet it is the centrepiece of the Government's job creation plan. The provincial Government of Quebec has already put in place a program which would employ people for a period of 20 weeks. The clear intention of such a program is to requalify people for unemployment insurance so that they can pass through the revolving door. The problem with the revolving door is that it is very difficult on the persons who have to live this way. We all know that they need full-time, permanent jobs.
The centrepiece of the Government's job creation Program in its economic statement is a part-time job creation plan which will create a revolving door between unemployment insurance and part-time or short-term work. That is not good enough, it is cruel, and it is insensitive.
I want to refer briefly to some of the other job creation items mentioned in the economic statement so as not to let them go without comment. In the statement $400 million is mentioned for railway investment and development. The statement also indicates that this investment is tied to the resolution of the Crowsnest Pass rate issue. That issue is not resolved, so that money is not moving. If that investment is tied to the resolution of the Crowsnest Pass rate, what the Government is doing is taking money out of the pockets of the farmers and putting it into the pocket of the railway companies. That will not create employment.
We know from past experience that when you invest in railways, you do not have more jobs but a loss of jobs. It has been a question of job loss rather than investment in railways resulting in job creation. We should be skeptical of investment in railways.
Another part of the economic statement as it relates to job creation is the question of where to find the money, from where they reallocate the funds. A good portion of the funds came from foreign aid. That needs to be questioned on at least two grounds. First, foreign aid as it is managed in this country generally leads to the employment of Canadians. When you take money out of foreign aid, you are taking jobs away from Canadians. We live in a world in which we are the affluent in spite of all our economic problems. There are those who need far more than we do. We make a small contribution to that need through foreign aid, yet we have the unmitigated gall to take money away from foreign aid, to rob money from the Third World in order to appear to create jobs. That is not acceptable. It is not the way we should be going.
Another reallocation item was taking money out of the CHIP Program, an energy program, which would be jobintensive. What jobs are created if you take jobs from a jobintensive Program and put them into a job-creation Program? That does not seem to make a great deal of sense. The New Democratic Party by contrast recommended that we take some of the incentives from the oil industry, which is very highly capitalized and creates few jobs, and redirect those resources to job intensive industries such as housing and forestry. That is
Supply
a way to reallocate money and come up in the balance with more jobs rather than less.
The economic statement of the Minister of Finance has an underlying economic strategy. Not only has he adopted the line of authority, which is to placate the private sector in an attempt to appeal to the business community, but what he has done in real economic terms is that he has given a tax break to those in the very upper income brackets. When the former Minister of Finance brought in his budget in November, he had lower tax rates for those in the upper income brackets, but he closed some of the loopholes. When the present Minister of Finance brought in his statement, he retained the lesser tax rate for the upper income people but reopened the loopholes. Those in the upper income brackets get the tax break while ordinary average Canadians who are struggling to make a living have been given a whopping 40 to 53 per cent tax increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
This is clearly inequitable and does not make any economic sense. I will state why quite clearly. At this moment we have an economy with a high percentage of savings and very weak consumer spending. We have to mobilize those savings and bring them around to stimulate consumer spending in order to get the economy moving and people working. One way to do this would be for those in the highest income brackets, those earning over $40,000 or $50,000, or those 704 people who earn over $100,000 a year and do not pay any tax whatsoever, to pay a fair share, to pay a progressive tax. Those revenues could be used for direct, full-time job creation. That would put money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It would get people back to work. Consumer spending would be strengthened, which is what we need to get the economy moving in the direction of recovery.
The economic strategy and the economic statement of the Minister of Finance is wrongheaded. It is out of whack with reality. In effect, it is a drag on the economy.
Unemployment insurance premiums have been increased at a time when most businesses are having a difficult time. For those running a small business, this added tax will make it more difficult to keep employees. Retail trade is down to one-half or one-third of what it was last year. It will be a tough decision to decide whether to keep a sales clerk or put him on the unemployment insurance rolls. The economic strategy in the document does not make any sense in terms of the goal of full employment and the right of Canadians to have a job and a decent income.
I would like to say a little more about the unemployment insurance system. The system is under a great deal of pressure. It was set up to service a lower rate of unemployment. Over the last year, the unemployment insurance caseload has doubled. This has been the experience in the local office in Winnipeg that I visited. The result of this extremely high caseload has resulted in constant delays for the average person applying for unemployment insurance.
One could play the game of trying to find out who is to blame-whether the person returned the card at the right

November 5, 1982
Supply
time, whether the commission sent out the card at the right time, how it got off the computer or how it got in to the computer. Once the process gets off the computer, the delays go on and on. It is a very long and slow process for a person to get unemployment insurance benefits.
I recommend that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) hire an adequate number of people to keep these unemployment insurance claims moving at a decent pace. If he cannot re-program the computer to handle the situation in order to avoid delays, he should hire people to process the claims so that the unemployed do not have to wait for these much needed benefits.
It is not only the average person applying for unemployment insurance benefits who faces these delays but those who are involved with some of the specific job creation programs of which the Government is so proud. There is, for example, the work-sharing program which the Minister is quoted as calling a success. We have learned that it is somewhat less than a success. Many of those who became involved in the worksharing program are now unemployed. The program was supposed to keep them working, yet they are now becoming unemployed. This is because work-sharing was designed as a short-term measure and the economic recession we are now in is long-term.
With regard to unemployment insurance, specifically, I have had complaints from various groups across the country who indicate that after they sign the work-sharing agreement it takes months before they can get their benefits. They have to wait an intolerable length of time. Even after the work sharing has run its course and they are back to being unemployed, there are further delays in order to get back on ordinary unemployment insurance. My colleague will be mentioning problems similar to this with regard to other employment programs, including the Employment Bridging Assistance Program.
I would like to focus now upon the question of those people who have been on unemployment insurance over the last year and are now exhausting their benefits. These are the people who are faced with the prospect of seeking welfare and having to exhaust all of their personal savings. These are the people who are suffering a great deal from the recession in which we are today.
The economic statement of the Minister of Finance indicated that the NEED Program, the job creation program, was going to meet the needs of those who had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. The statistics of the Department of Employment indicate some 50,000 to 55,000 people a month are now exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits and the predictions are that this figure will increase to
90.000	per month. The NEED job creation program, even by the Government's own standards, is going to create only some
60.000	jobs. That will cover one month, Mr. Speaker, whereas the NEED Program is supposed to last a period of some 18 months. The economic statement made reference to a previous job creation program of $300 million. That also, by using the
appropriate rule of thumb, would create some 25,000 full-time jobs, which would in no way meet the needs of these people who have exhausted their UIC benefits.
I think it is time for the Government to consider seriously the extension of UIC benefits for another 26 weeks. I say this because, clearly, the Government has failed to meet the need by providing jobs for those people who are exhausting their UIC benefits. In order to be humane and leave people with their self-respect and human dignity, I recommend to the Government that it extend the benefits under the unemployment insurance system.
I say this because the unemployment insurance system was originally set up because the federal Government recognized that it was the prime mover in the national economy and had responsibility for the health of the economy and for employment. It had adopted the goal of full employment, a goal which is essential to Canada and to the roughly two million people today who are unemployed. By extending these benefits, the Government would once again reassert its responsibility in economic matters and show its concern about those people who have no other place to go now but welfare, or exhaust their personal savings.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the second time this week that we have had the opportunity, through an Opposition motion, to discuss the very important question of unemployment in the country, and it happens on a day when we received the latest figures on unemployment. I wish these figures were otherwise than what they are, because they are serious and tragic, but they do create for the Members of this Chamber the requirement to deal with the matter in a straightforward, logical, consistent, and I hope constructive manner.
That is why I was looking forward with some anticipation, Mr. Speaker, to the opening remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) on behalf of the New Democratic Party, which claims, at least in its public utterances, that it is the Party which is concerned about the unemployed. I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I express my deep disappointment in what we have heard in the initial contribution in this House, because it was a massive contradiction wrapped up in a ball of misrepresentations, and has added nothing to the kind of debate which we need in this House in order to come to grips with the issues.
I think one of the difficulties we have is that we can very quickly manufacture pseudo events and pseudo truths. It seems the NDP feel that somehow if they say something long enough it will become reality even though it is not based upon fact but concocted somewhere in cuckoo land and makes absolutely no sense at all when it comes to the reality of what we are dealing with. And that is certainly the kind of position we heard from the Hon. Member today.
He began by condemning the NEED Program, saying it is a make-work program, which make no sense, and does not provide jobs that last long. None of this is true, of course,
November 5, 1982

because the Program is designed for 12 months, not 20 weeks. We have said that consistently. It is designed to provide longterm jobs in a productive way. It is having the success of bringing a wide variety of Governments and other institutions together to co-operate in a major effort to deal with the problem of exhaustees. We are trying to put together a program which will provide the alternative to work. None of this was acknowledged by the Hon. Member. Instead, the Hon. Member did nothing but criticize the NEED program, throw scorn upon it and dismiss it, even though it will provide work opportunities for many of those people he talks about.
He takes the position that we must do something about the exhaustees. What did he offer us as a solution? The Hon. Member suggested we should extend unemployment insurance benefits for another 26 weeks. Making a quick calculation, Mr. Speaker, that would probably add something like $3 billion to $4 billion to the cost of the unemployment insurance fund. At the same time, the Hon. Member asked that we not raise unemployment insurance premiums to pay for it because they have already gone up too high. Does he have a secret formula or is there a tree out there, wherever the NDP make their policy, that they can shake to get money? Do they not realize that unemployment insurance is paid by the employees, the employers and the taxpayers? If you provide for an extension of benefits for 26 weeks at an additional cost of approximately $3 billion, somebody has to pay for it.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, to add one contradiction upon another, we also have the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) saying the deficit should not be raised any higher, that the deficit should stay where it is. So we are faced with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James saying we should put another $3 billion into the fund, but do not raise the premiums, do not raise the deficit.
So where is the money going to come from? The conventional knee-jerk answer of the NDP is "tax the rich". Yet we see in today's paper that profits are down in most major companies in this country by 44 per cent. We have other members of the NDP saying we should put more money into investment and research and development. But where does the money come from? It comes form the profits of the companies which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James wants to tax further. When you add that all up, Mr. Speaker, it simply does not make sense. You cannot add more benefits, cut back taxes, not raise premiums, or put more money into investment, without getting the money from somewhere. The money has to come from taxpayers or by running up a deficit. It has to come from some source. It does not appear magically on a doorstep because the tooth fairy put it there. Yet that seems to be the source of inspiration for the economic policy of the NDP. They are not offering us anything that is consistent, logical or rational. They are simply trying to package together a whole round of mythologies and misrepresentations in the hope of gaining support. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to puncture holes in that particular bit of fantasy spun out by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James.
Supply
I feel badly because we had to raise premiums, but we have to make a choice. We have to say to the unemployed workers that if they want to continue to receive their benefits, then that cost must be shared by the broader base of workers and employers across Canada. That is a good philosophy which has stood us in good stead in times of crisis, times of recession. People are prepared to share. Those who have employment are prepared to offer some of their stipend to help those unemployed.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the position taken by the Hon. Member who obviously has not done his homework, the premium level was established after very extensive discussion and consultation with labour unions and employers. We asked them what their point of view was. I know the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) does not know what consultation is. He does not believe in it because he does not practise it. But we do, and we went out over the summer and fall and discussed with a wide variety-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Don't give us that line.


Lloyd Axworthy: It seems, Mr. Speaker, that we have pushed the Hon. Member's panic button again and all we are hearing is a loud wail.
The fact of the matter is that we did consult with employers and unions as to the appropriate level for the premiums. They all admitted that premiums would have to rise, and they said properly so in order that we can share the burden. They asked us not to take them up to the full rate required to exhaust the benefits, and we did not do that. We are contributing $1 billion to the unemployment insurance fund through Government financing in order to carry the burden for the unemployed through that system. But is the New Democratic Party prepared to recognize that? Are they prepared to recognize the best advice we got from the private sector and the unions? Oh no, they have their own little conjuring machine which sort of spins out these wild fantasies about how we are going to do all the different things we should do and somehow there will be the dollars necessary to pay for it. It just does not work that way, Mr. Speaker. That is not the way the system works. You have to have a balance sheet, and unfortunately they will never have to meet that balance sheet because they will never be in Government.
Let us spend a moment, Mr. Speaker, talking about the other parts of the unemployment insurance system because other Members of that caucus opposite have been rising to their feet in great condemnation of the unemployment insurance system. They do not seem to recognize that across the country in many cases the number of applications has almost doubled. I can give some figures which might be of interest to Hon. Members of the House. If you look at the figures for September, 1981 and September, 1982, the number of claims we received went from 1.8 milion to 2.7 million. In certain regions of the country, particularly in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, the claim load has gone up over 100 per cent.

November 5, 1982
Supply
Because of that we have put in place a number of corrective measures. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James said: "Why not add new people?" I would like to inform him that he is a little late with his advice, because three months ago we appropriated an additional 1,200 person-years, we have finished training these people and they are going into the offices right now to work on the additional unemployment claim load. You would think he might have spent a little time learning those facts. Instead, he simply condemns the hundreds of employees in the UIC who have been spending countless hours of overtime, working six or seven days a week, to try and meet the problems of people as well as the claim load. But oh no, they have no concern or sympathy for those working people who are going above and beyond the call of duty to try and meet the crisis. They simply criticize and condemn those workers.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is not true.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that we have put in a number of measures. In addition to the 1200 person-years, we have established separate adjudication centres to deal with the problem. We have relaxed certain criteria as far as the Auditor General will allow us to. We have worked with business and labour to try and get a better reporting system. We have established special regional task forces so that members of the Commission can move from one area where the demand is low to where it is high. We have been using those measures through the summer and fall and have reduced the backlog as a result.
We have not solved the problem, Mr. Speaker, I admit that. But we are working on it and we have a lot of very fine people in the Commission who are devoting their time to making it work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Then, Mr. Speaker, we get this kind of resolution which absolutely condemns the Commission and the people who work for it.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Don't pass the buck.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the NDP for you. That is the Party which likes to say it is full of generosity and tolerance for the working people. They sure do not care about the people in our Commission who are working overtime, double time, to get the product out. They are making very major sacrifices to make sure that the system delivers.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is saying: "Well, part of the problem is the additional employment programs you have brought in. They are putting too much pressure on the system." After all, there are some snags in the system.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: They are not working.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that when you have
180,000	workers enrolled in a work sharing program, a program which has averted 75,000 lay-offs, it seems to me that is an initiative which should be applauded, not condemned, by
the Hon. Member for Winnipeg, St.-James. We have saved the jobs of 75,000 workers in the country through that one program alone. Again, you would think the NDP might have some concern about that. They might take some interest in that program and help us to improve it. If there are problems, then we will respond to them and put the people to work. I invite Members of the NDP caucus, when they have a problem, to bring it to my attention and I will try to correct it. But let them not put up in this House this kind of resolution and make a blanket condemnation of initiatives which are providing basic security and job protection for over 180,000 workers in this country. I will not accept that kind of condemnation because, as we all know, it is based on a know nothing attitude, not on a realistic appraisal of how to correct the problem and come to grips with the issues we face.
1 think, Mr. Speaker, this resolution does nothing for the honour, standing or stature of the NDP in this House. It is not constructive or positive, it offers no solutions; it is simply caustic and negative in its tone. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James continued that particular negative panegyric when he got to his feet to punch holes in the efforts we are making to help people bridge this very serious recession we are in. Those Programs, Mr. Speaker, are working. Not only the NEED Program, but the Training Program of $1 billion.
I was fascinated by the Leader of the NDP who again was only about a year late coming up with a proposal. He said "I have a brand new solution for the problems of the economy; let us have a new training program". Where has he been for the last year when this House passed the National Training Act? Where was be when this House appropriated $1 billion for new training across this country? Have they been asleep so long? Are they so far out of touch that they do not even know what is going on in this Parliament, in this House, and then they propose something already done as part of their great solution to the Canadian crisis?. 1 think Canadians expect far more from the Opposition critics at this point in time. They expect far more than borrowing ideas and concocting fantasy. They expect the Opposition to be working with the Programs we have initiated in order to help make them work.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we have the NEED Program, a $500 million program which can be added to with the co-operation of the Provinces and the private sector and which will provide over 60,000 jos. Not the short-term jobs the Hon. Member pretends it will provide, but jobs which will last up to a year; jobs which will build fishing wharves in Newfoundland and water systems in Nova Scotia; jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia and in the cities of Canada developing municipal services and renovating housing. That is the kind of work this Program is intended to do, and if we can get the cooperation of Members of this House as we are now getting it from the Provinces and the private sector of this country, we will have a Program which will provide major support and real
November 5, 1982

hope for the unemployed in this country at a time when they need that support and hope the most.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) seeks consent to revert to Routine Proceedings. Is there unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure unanimous consent will be forthcoming. I just want to know if this is for the purpose of tabling the document that sets up the Royal Commission to establish Mr. Donald Macdonald as the heir apparent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship between the purpose indicated by the Hon. Member and the purpose of the Royal Commission, but the document is the same.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada.

In fact, this is the Commission mentioned by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this morning, during question period.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Keeper:
Supply
That this House condemns the government for their incompetent management of the unemployment insurance system and their mishandling and misdirection of employment programs:
(o) by creating and tolerating long and unconscionable delays in payment of earned benefits to claimants;
(b)	by refusing to provide extended benefits or jobs to the growing thousands of unemployed whose benefits are expiring each month;
(c)	by raising unemployment insurance premiums by 40 to 53% at a time when UIC services are declining and in disrepute; and
finally, condemns the government for fumbling a growing myriad of uncoordinated hit and miss job creation programs and its consequent failure to begin to provide some meaningful employment and stable incomes for over 1.4 million jobless Canadians.
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, seldom has a Royal Commission been announced and established with such a lack of conviction!
I want to make some remarks in this debate on the motion of the New Democratic Party, primarily with respect to the programs of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). However, in light of the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last night and in question period today, perhaps I ought to offer some remarks with respect to the proposed Royal Commission first of all.
1 have no difficulty in accepting the principle of a Royal Commission. Royal Commissions have been established in this country for over a century and on three or four occasions have dealt with employment matters and economic prospects. They are usually two or three years in the making and take about a year and a half for consideration of the subject. That is generally enough time for most of the recommendations not to be accepted.
When the Prime Minister spoke about a Royal Commission earlier today he mentioned the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission which was established in 1937 and reported about 1940. It was hardly ever heard from again, except in the lecture halls of universities.
We do not have great difficulty with the idea of a Royal Commission but rather with the way it is being approached. We would like to have a Royal Commission. Indeed, in the past we have urged that one be appointed, but we have two difficulties with the way it is being done here. First, it is being presented as a smokescreen behind which the Government can hide the unemployment figures as the number of people unemployed in this country grows. Second, we have the feeling that it is more related to the Prime Minister's leadership difficulties at the convention this weekend than it has to do with any serious and sincere concern for the economic problems that affect the people of this country. We recognize that the appointment of Mr. Macdonald is absolutely necessary for the weekend, but I do not think this is the kind of approach to

November 5, 1982
Supply
Canada's economic problems that will enhance any trust, if there is any left, in this Government.
If there is to be a Royal Commission, we have a couple of ideas for the Government to consider when it actually sets up this Commission. The Commission should deal with both longterm and short-term problems. It should deal with specific facts and figures in relation to the analysis of what has happened to us in the past ten years. It should make recommendations for the immediate future as well as for the long term in terms of technological change between now and the turn of the century.
I think the Commission should also deal with those aspects of Government policy which have caused such incredible difficulty for this country. I refer to policies with respect to interest rates and the National Energy Program-at least, those aspects of it that have destroyed investor confidence. The Commission should deal with research and development and with the establishment of national training centres across the country so that people can be trained for jobs in the future. This Commission should not be one of those that is drawn out for two and three years. We hope that a deadline will be established of something in the order of six months.


Ian Deans: Only until the leadership convention.


David Edward Crombie: That is right. I fear that the idea of this Commission will not even last beyond the weekend or until the Liberals have dealt with their convention. It is really a shoddy trick.
A Royal Commission should be independent. It should not be a vehicle for the Liberal Party to politicize its problems with respect to its responsibilities to the Canadian people. I suggest that this Commission be made up of three people, one of whom should represent labour in the interests of the working people. The second member of this Commission should be a woman, because there are so many more women now adversely affected than before with respect to employment opportunities. This three-person independent Commission should be dealing with both short-range and long-range problems. That is desirable so long as it is impartial and independent. The difficulty with such a Royal Commission is that it is simply playing politics on the part of the Liberal Party and its setting up has not been motivated by any sincere concern to do something for the people of Canada facing current economic difficulties.
I now want to deal with some of the matters raised by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Every time people make suggestions either inside or outside of this House these days, the Minister of Employment and Immigration keeps saying "Let's co-operate; why keep attacking me?" He gets very concerned that somehow we do not believe what he has to say.
The only specific proposal that this House has seen dealing with unemployment since the House opened a week ago has been the proposal made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to establish a Program called NEED. This Program is to create 60,000 short-term jobs to begin in January, at a
cost of about half a billion dollars. Make no mistake about the purpose of that Program. It is not to create jobs but to create an opportunity to allow those whose unemployment insurance benefits are exhausted and would then go on to welfare to requalify for UIC. To that extent, the Program is worthwhile. There is not a Member in this House who is opposed to opportunities for employment so that people can requalify for unemployment insurance. But anybody who suggests in all honesty that this is a job creation Program that deals with 1.75 million unemployed by creating 60,000 short-term jobs, I will not go so far as to say is dishonest, but is certainly in total ignorance of what is happening on the streets of this country. People are hurting yet the Government fools around with that kind of Program and this nonsense about a Royal Commission.
The priority of the Government should be to provide longterm jobs for people. The unemployment rate among the young of this country, those between the ages of 15 and 24, is 21 per cent. These people will not be affected by the Program which the Minister offers. They are not on unemployment insurance because these are the ones applying for their first jobs. Our graduates from colleges and universities have an unemployment rate this year, according to the figures this morning, of close to 19 per cent. The Government has not even bothered to address their problems.
When the Minister seeks co-operation and wonders why we attack his policies, he has forgotten that when he took over the Ministry two years ago the unemployment rate was 7.4 per cent. The number of unemployed at that time was 854,000 people. The rate two years later is 12.7 per cent and there are
1,521,000	people officially unemployed in this country. This Minister has presided over the largest decline of employment in this country since the great depression. I can understand why he gets thin-skinned about people who, on behalf of their own constituents, are attacking his lack of action. He knows his record as Minister has been the worst since the depression.
When a person is responsible for the doubling of unemployment and the loss of 750,000 jobs, I suppose putting up a smokescreen is about the only thing he can do. It is a smokescreen of numbers. The Minister of Finance's Program costing about half a billion dollars and creating 60,000 jobs was not even planned. When that Program was announced the Government was not even aware what budget it would have. It talked airily about participation by the other Provinces to bring in $1.2 billion. The federal Government would put in $500 million, with additions from the Provinces. It is now clear from the Minister's flying around, because we have now had a public statement from the Provinces that he will not have anywhere close to that amount of money for his budget. He not only has no budget but he has no program.
Did anyone hear one program which the Minister was suggesting that was new? There was not one idea. There was not one new program. The Minister was not only looking for ideas from the Provinces or anybody else because he did not have any ideas of his own, but he just had a budget that was
November 5, 1982

brought in for the occasion. Rumours tell us that the Minister got permission from the Cabinet to do this about 24 hours before the Minister of Finance made his speech. The program bears the marks of having given no thought to the actual onstreet delivery of jobs.
The Minister's problem is that he has been unable to approach the House in a kind of honest fashion that says "Here are the problems. Here are the difficulties we see with certain solutions. Here is what we would like to do in the short run and here is what we would like to do in the long run." That is the way in which most people would approach their responsibilities. He does not do that. The Minister of Employment and Immigration just announces figures, reannounces them, scrambles them, multiplies them, permutates them and combines them.
People across the country are at a loss to understand what those figures mean, but what we do know for sure after two years is that every time the Minister announces a new program, unemployment goes up. For people on the streets that is reality. Unemployment simply gets worse as we hear more and more figures announced and reannounced.
The Minister finished his speech in relation to what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) said today by saying that this Program will have people back to work in the mines, in the fishing industry, in the manufacturing sector in Ontario, and that we will have people back to work in British Columbia. That is what the Minister does every time. The difficulty is that people know the reality. People live the reality. Increasingly, the federal Government is being brought into disrepute by that kind of publicity seeking, with no reality in terms of actual jobs delivered.
If there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the program announced by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration is only to do with so-called exhaustees, I suggest they read the report that was issued. It said that the program is specifically designed to benefit those who exhaust unemployment insurance benefits and would otherwise fall back on welfare. We agree with that. That is what must be done, but there are two problems involved. One, the figures which are used by the Minister which set out
60,000	jobs-even if it is that many-are about 25,000 too short. The statistics the Government is using with respect to unemployment are far lower than the actual unemployment. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker, it will discover that it will have to return to the House or make an announcement that it will need to increase that fund, because the program offered will not cover all those people who are on unemployment and will fall on welfare.
The statistics this morning indicate that this is already happening, let alone what will happen next month and the following months. While there is a short-term problem, the Government's short-term program will not even cover those who are currently drawing unemployment insurance and about to fall into welfare.
Supply
Second, it is an absolutely cruel hoax by the Government to suggest that this type of program has anything to do with those who are not on unemployment insurance and going on to welfare. It does not affect the million other people who are simply unemployed. For that reason the Minister is in difficulty when he makes those statements because he promises far too much. People depend on his announcements because they accept what he says as a Minister of the Crown to be the truth. As someone said this morning about a provincial Minister whom he had already seen, "He came here looking for publicity, money and ideas. He got none of them."
There is an interesting column in this morning's Citizen which I believe makes the case. The title is: "Job Creation Plan Still a Mystery". Indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. It is still a mystery. The Minister flies, he announces, multiplies and combines, but no jobs of any significance are created for anyone.
Part of the NDP motion also deals with the way in which the unemployment insurance system works. I believe that the Minister made a good defence of the quality of those working in his Department, who try very hard to fill the orders. When the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James indicated that there were thousands of problems with the way unemployment insurance is administered, he was right. I suggest that it was unfair for the Minister to simply say we should not accuse the workers in that Department of not working hard. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James was not suggesting that. He is trying to impress upon the Minister that there are thousands of problems with how the Unemployment Insurance Program is administered.
The fact of the matter is that every Member in the House can produce a file such as I have-which is only last week's alone-of people who have legitimate concerns over the administration of unemployment insurance. I expect that the Minister would listen to those concerns and act upon them rather than simply attack someone who legitimately questions the administration of the program.
Let me select one letter from about 30 which I received last week. This is an appropriate letter because it points out the problems of UIC. This letter was written to "Change Canada". This person wrote:
I watched your Television promotion on training Canadians for trades of the future. One thing that I am confused about is the fact that I am one of those Canadians given the chance to be retrained at Humber College (Canada Manpower Retraining) for which I had used all of my Unemployment Insurance Benefits only to find that after long hours of homework and sacrifice I am now in the position of having no employment.
I have inquired for employment at over 140 companies dealing in this field. Being without employment I have taken a job at a temporary placement service which can be of no benefit to me and my career change.
Now I find, that after graduating on December 4, 1981, no one is in the position to hire me due to economic conditions. 1 cannot even get a junior position in my field! (Numerical Control Machine Program) and no one will give me a position in labour because they feel I will leave when 1 find an opportunity to enter my field.
So could you please answer this question? Is this new program you are offering designed to give false hopes in the future or is it sincere considering the Employment Departments are going to import 20,000 skilled workers? Where does this leave Canadians like myself?

November 5, 1982
Supply
All the letters that most Members receive either deal with the administration and the problem of getting service in terms of UI payouts or, even more importantly in the long run, with trying to get employment in the types of jobs that the Government, over the last number of years, has seen fit to train people for.
The all-Party committee in its estimation of the track record of the Government in producing training for jobs that are available, which is called "Work for Tomorrow", utterly condemned the Government's handling of Manpower programs primarily because they lead to dead-end jobs, if any job at all. This was the view of all parties in that committee.
This has been the problem throughout when trying ot deal with the Minister and the Government generally in terms of understanding what is actually happening to ordinary Canadians in towns, villages and cities all across Canada as they try to cope with the deepening recession. Canadians, and indeed our Party, do not want to blame the Government; it is just so difficult to convey to it that when it only gives us numbers and multiplies them and publicizes those figures, it creates that lack of trust and credibility which is so entrenched in the minds of Canadians that even when it brings out a program that may be helpful, people have difficulty believing it.
This afternoon a number of Members from the New Democratic Party will be making points and offering suggestions in support of their motion. We will support that motion because the Minister and his Government seem far more concerned either with its publicity or its internal politics than with seriously dealing with the recession which is deepening every day.
The unemployment figures which were released this morning are the highest since the depression. There is 12.7 per cent of the Canadian work force unemployed and 21 per cent of those are between the ages of 15 and 24. Those are the young Canadians who are just starting out in their work life. As well, many towns and villages are economically decimated by the deepening recession while the Government does so little to help those towns and villages which we in the House know so well are so adversely affected that they are unable to deal with their own economic base. Hamilton, for example, has unemployment at 15 per cent.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude by saying that unless the Government begins to take the unemployment difficulties in this country seriously, it will reap social problems in this country which will take decades to rectify. It is time for the Government to stop worrying about publicity and politics and to start working hard to ensure that long-term, useful programs are developed for the people out on the street who are crying out for them.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, it was with some dismay and deep regret, I must say, that I heard anything but positive remarks from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) earlier this morning. There is an old saying with which I think we are all
familiar. It is: "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again."
The Minister's feelings were obviously hurt. He said that we do not congratulate him when he tries. He does try, Mr. Speaker. He tries and tries and tries again. However, the first part of that equation is: "If at first you don't succeed-" I, and I think all Canadians, are only left with the very clear impression that the Minister has failed again and again and again and that is why he must keep on trying. That is a sorry situation.
There is such an absolute myriad of mismanagement, disorganization and unco-ordination in the conduct of one employment program after another that no one could believe it is only the fault of some hard working public employees. The Minister himself said that those employees have been working overtime for hours every day, coming in with fresh recruits, having to train at least hundreds to do a job for which the Department is so ill prepared. No one will blame those people. I thought it was a very cheap shot by the Minister to suggest that we were going after the hard working employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. No such thought was in our minds. In fact, I would pay a compliment. There have been fuddle-ups in the EBAP Program, within the Salmon Enhancement Program in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and others. We have actually seen pictures on television of unemployed Canadians who were left with no cash at all because of the fumbling of the Minister, his Government and Department. One of them was lent money out of the pockets of an employee of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. With the restraints imposed upon those hard working employees by the Government, they can ill afford to pass out that money, especially to people who, if we go by the track record of UIC delays, really do not know when or whether their next benefit cheques will come. So it was a cheap shot by the Minister. The Minister has failed and failed again, not the employees of the UIC and not the hard working employees elsewhere in his Department.
Before 1 list the catalogue of horror stories, both specific and more general, I want to make a comment on a peculiar announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the establishment of yet another Royal Commission into Canada's economic prospects. It is fascinating to some of us who recall history to find that we should once again have a Prime Minister and Government Members who continually pile parliamentary committees upon Royal Commissions. That was the description in the well known poem of Frank Scott entitled "W.L.M.K." In reference to our late Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, he wrote:
The height of his ambition
Was to pile a Parliamentary Committee on a
Royal Commission
My, my, things have not changed very much, have they? They have not changed at all. I wonder whether this is the
November 5, 1982

resurrection of Walter Gordon, who headed a Royal Commission on Canada's economic prospects approximately 20 years ago. Will this one turn out to be such a failure? Will the person appointed to run it be the same kind of failure, according to that Government opposite as well as many Canadians, as was the author of that report? When will we receive a regurgitated Herb Gray report on foreign investment in Canada? Is that the next one? When will we get a regurgitated form of a Carter Royal Commission on Taxation? Will we get that, too? Will we have one regurgitated rehash and resurrection after another?
If that is all the Government has to offer, it ought to get out now because there is no sense in us being positive with its Members. All they want to do is hide behind one more commission, behind the hard working Public Service, to screen them from the attacks so legitimately deserved by the Government. What a sorry mess. What a sorry prospect for Canadians who, like many of my constituents who I visited this summer, are almost without hope because of the Government's constant inaction and delays.
I think the most heartrending experience I have ever had was in visiting the homes of some of my former workmates at B.C. Timber's Kootenay forest products sawmill in Nelson which has been shut down for almost a year. The first group was dropped from the seniority list, after being laid off for 18 months just a few days ago. I am not stereotyping here, but I think that almost all Hon. Members in this House and most Canadians would agree that, in spite of their Catholicism,Ital-ian-Canadians are almost the very picture of the Protestant work ethic. No group is recognized as working harder and longer and using credit less until the advent of the larcenous interest policies of the last few years, both the Conservative and Liberal interest rate policies. Hardly any member of that community even went into debt to buy a house. To start with, they would buy a small house. They would build and improve. They would pool their labour together with their neighbours and families.
Now we see that after decades of hard and honest work, many of these people own not only their own homes, but also second homes and third homes. However, because the only industrial operations in their community have been shut down for either a year or a year and a half, they do not have any tenants left because anyone who does not have deep roots has moved away. These home owners are in a state of crisis. Some of the hardest cases that I know of, and I use that term in a complimentary way, involve guys who would give me the roughest time at any union meeting we ever attended. I have been seated at their kitchen tables when these men have openly cried in front of me and admitted to me that on alternate days-because they are still pretty strong-they think that perhaps the sawmill will open again, that they may survive and will be in a position to send their children to ice-skating classes again. They think that maybe they will be able to afford to put decent food on the table on a regular basis again and purchase a few building materials to make improvements to their houses so they can take advantage of some of the other Government programs. But then there are the other days when they look at the sorry morass around them across this country, the morass
Supply
that this Government sits on top of, and they wonder if they will ever get out of that hole.
I have seen them break down and cry, and these are pretty tough people, these hard working guys, some of the toughest I have ever had the honour of working beside. When they work they work hard, and when they build they build well. They want a chance to build, a chance to contribute, because it hurts anyone's pride to be left out of the productive sector of our society. It is exactly these people and their neighbors who have never had to resort to going on UIC benefits before, and it tears their guts out to think they may have to go on welfare. I will not continue to talk about how these people, no matter how hard pressed they are, feel. It is a sad story and having once stated it, I do not believe we need to go over it again and again.
However, I do want to refer to some specific problems. In my own home town of Nelson and in the surrounding community, there are a number of programs under the Employment Bridging Assistance Program. However, one of the problems is that if one is approved and hired under such a Program, one is taken off the regular UIC computers and is entered on to a manual system of benefits payment. Quoting from a newspaper article in my own local paper, "If you work, you wait longer for your cheque than you would if you do not work". That is the dilemma being faced by unemployed Nelson area workers who have opted for make-work projects funded under the federal-provincial Employment Bridging Assistance Program. That is exactly what has happened because of the fumbling within the Minister's area of responsibility. If one goes to work for one's benefits, one does not receive any money for weeks. When I say weeks, I do not mean two or three. One can be cut off regular benefits which one has received for a long time and then can wait two to 12 weeks before one begins to receive any money out of the benefits one has paid for. That is inexcusable and intolerable and these delays have been going on for months.
Do Hon. Members want to know what happened to one of these UIC employees who led a group of his fellow EBAP employees down to the welfare office so they would have social assistance to provide food on their tables? He had the audacity, I suppose, according to the Government's views, to complain on CBC Radio about the maladministration of the Program, not only because of delays in payments, but also because administration costs going to the employers of record had risen from $50 a week to $100 to $200 per week per man. He was fired from the UIC Program the next day and his employer of record said that it had nothing to do with his work.
Those of us who know the history of Canada, especially that of working people, realize that not so long ago it was not uncommon for employees of Government and employees in private industry to be fired for exercising their God-given right to freedom of speech. But have we now reached the point

November 5, 1982
Supply
where one can be fired from the unemployment rolls for it? How ridiculous can they get? I raised this matter the other day in the House. When that employee sought redress through his former union representative-of course he does not pay dues any more but he has a retirement card-he looked at the laws of the land and found out that his provincial Government, the partner in this mess with the federal Government had wiped out the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia as it applied to people who work under the Employment Bridging Assistance Program. I expect that has happened in other Provinces as well.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) is present but the Minister of Employment and Immigration is not. I ask him whether the Government will assume some responsibility for the conditions and terms of work of people employed under a program which is essentially its program. If the Provinces, either by collusion with the federal Government or acting independently-British Columbia does some funny things some times-do not look after the basic and fundamental rights of employees, surely we must ask the federal Government and the Minister of Labour to confirm that this is a matter of federal jurisdiction. Then a case could be made and the basic rights, imperfect as they are outlined in our federal labour laws, will apply to these EBAP employees.
I should like to turn to a slightly less serious note but one that is very important. The Minister of Employment and Immigration wanted some cases. What about an unemployed construction worker in Vancouver who was denied his claim for benefits because he was pregnant? Perhaps this example is on the humorous side, but I would like to quote his language, it is not mine. He went down to the unemployment insurance office and said, "I know I am getting screwed but I ain't pregnant". The information I have is that he is still waiting, and he has been waiting weeks and weeks. Anyone can slip up.
I am not suggesting that this sort of extreme example, which gives the worst impression, often goes on. There are more odd stories than we would like to ever admit or think about.
I would like to refer to another case of an unemployed logger who has waited 12 weeks for his benefits. For some weeks he has, along with other claimants, been launching a class action law suit, assisted by his union, the International Woodworkers, against the Minister and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Why is it that people have to shell out their own money, whether it is money that they have put into union dues or out of their own pockets, to get some attention paid to foul-ups and unconscionable delays in payments of regular UIC benefits to which they are entitled and for which they have paid many times over? These are not lazy people. Many of them have not been on UIC before. They have paid into it, they want to work, and they have a right to expect their benefits. It is not enough to say that, "we are working all our employees overtime, hiring more people and training more people." My God, could they not see it coming?


Neil Young: They planned it.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: As my colleague says, they planned it. Perhaps it was not planned consciously.


Neil Young: It was consciously.


Mr. Heap:: Trudeau threatened it.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Many people suspected that it was planned. It got away on them. They went a little too far. It was not enough to kick just a few people back into their place or to lower the proportion of the national income which goes to the labour force. They got carried away. Now we are in the midst of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) admitted the other day was a depression, and let there be no doubt about it. The Minister of Employment took some issue with him, but even today in Question Period the Minister of Finance said that this is a time when the value of homes is going down. In response to a question by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), the mover of this motion, earlier today, the Minister of Finance said that this is a time when the value of people's homes is going down and when prices on a wide range of commodities were falling. He did not say that the prices set and determined by the Government are going down; they continue to go up.
When prices are falling in this manner along with the value of homes, the rate of inflation and, of course, interest rates, it is not a recession, it is a depression. I am not trying to be an alarmist, but the other day the Minister of Finance said that we were in a state of depression. Those were his words, not mine. That is exactly the situation we are in.
Also a few moments ago the Minister of Employment made reference to consultation and that somehow my NDP colleagues and I do not want good consultation with anyone.


Neil Young: Where is the Minister?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Do you want to know what the officials of Employment Canada had to say about it? One official said:
The Prime Minister's office has been providing projects. They have to be approved by Lloyd Axworthy. There are no regional allocations. The only real concrete guidelines are that 50 per cent must be spent on labour.
Another employee said:
The message came down that these guys are getting it. We've put in our objections that this by-passes the whole advisory board route. But they didn't heed any of our words. I believe it was the Minister's office. It's really annoying. It's going past any processes that have been established. It looks like patronage.
One final quotation by an official in Employment Canada was as follows:
The Senators have been talking to various community groups. They're asking some people if they have a project that could use money. This whole thing is very political.
I think that is enough. The Minister is not speaking the truth. He talks about the fact that we do not believe in consultation. It is he who does not believe in it; they do not believe in it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired.
[DOT] (M50)


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate because the subject matter is of great concern to me and the constitutents I represent. It is fitting for me to congratulate the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) as well as the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who earlier in the week had this very same subject matter placed before the House of Commons. I like to see issues of great importance not only to my constituency but to the national economy placed before the Parliament of Canada.
In reading through the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James, I note that the tone of that motion is a harsh one. I agree with some parts of the motion. The Hon. Member attacks the system of unemployment insurance and attacks a system whereby there are numerous delays, claims and appeals. Members of Parliament have files of people who are encountering these difficulties. It is fair to place before the Parliament of Canada, the Minister and his officials as well as Government members those specific instances so that they can be examined.
It is awfully unfair for the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to talk only of the problems and not the solutions. Anyone can list the number of people unemployed in his or her community. Anyone, particularly on the Opposition benches, can list the number of businesses that have gone into bankruptcy or receivership as a result of the world economic recession. Unfortunately, when mentioning the problem they forget some very pertinent elements, such as the world recession of which Canada is a part. They fail to mention that there are 30 million people unemployed in the OECD countries. If Canadians for one moment think or hope that somehow that world recession is going to pass us by and leave us alone, they are sadly mistaken.
Supply
When listening to the Opposition, particularly the New Democratic Party, one would think there is only one Government in this country. Yes, there is a national Government, but there are also provincial and municipal Governments and they have to play their part.
Not only the public sector but the private sector has a role to play in terms of changing and turning our economy around to provide the jobs we all want. I find it somewhat repugnant to have the Hon. Member for Rosedale, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James or the New Democratic Party try to have this corner of sympathy for the working man to themselves. All Members of Parliament regardless of their political ideology share that concern and want to do something about unemployment.
The Government has introduced the six and five program on wages and prices. It has to be accepted that a 6 per cent world or 6 per cent inflation rate is a lot better than the 12 or 14 per cent world we have had for the last number of months and will provide businesses with confidence and the incentive to reinvest. It is essential that that program work.
I find Members of Parliament, particularly those opposite, questioning the substance of that program, sneering at it as opposed to getting together with a collective will as a national parliament to support that program. It is in the best interest of every working man and woman in this country to have inflation reduced substantially and to have prices reduced as much possible in order to have our economy turn around.
There are certain facts that even the Opposition, although they talk about the problems, have forgotten to mention. I talked about provincial Governments. We ought not to forget our responsibilities as a national Government, but provincial Governments have a role to play as well. What has the provincial Government of my Province of Nova Scotia done? They are of a different political stripe than we. They have had taxes upon taxes, particularly on industries in my constituency. It is very difficult.
The Government of Canada has introduced a Program funded to the tune of $500 million called the NEED Program. I am somewhat concerned that the New Democratic Party would make jokes and laugh about such a Program. The Program not only requires money from other levels of Government, but requires a sense of co-operation by municipal and provincial Governments to make it work.
It is not the time for us in Canada, regardless of our political ideology, to play that game. The problem is too serious. We need to have jobs in this country and we need them now. To those individuals opposite who want to engage in political rhetoric and political gamesmanship, I say I do not want any part of it. As a member of the national Government, 1 want to co-operate with my provincial and municipal Governments to see that people get back to work, and do so right away.
The Hon. Member who spoke prior to me made some remarks about the Minister of Employment and Immigration

November 5, 1982
Supply
(Mr. Axworthy) not being in the House today. That is correct, he is away. He is attending a national convention at the present time. He is discussing issues and resolutions pertaining to jobs, job creation and the economic development of this country. That is important. The Hon. Member has on this occasion and indeed on many other occasions taken upon himself to resort to low and undignified tactics in this House.
The Department of Employment and Immigration is not the only arm of the Government of Canada. There are numerous other Departments that are actively involved in an attempt to create jobs in Canada and to create them right away.
I mention to the Hon. Member that in my own riding in the last number of weeks and months the Department of Fisheries has made moneys available for the creation of numerous jobs. I refer to the very small communities of South Bar, Lingan, Barrachois Cove, False Bay Beach and Little Harbour in Richmond County. Thousands of dollars have been poured into those small communities. They are not Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal but small communities. The Government has put this money into those communities to build facilities to assist the fisherman who, too, is a working person. This is very important, but we do not hear anything positive coming from those on that side. They never want to highlight the moneys which the Government of Canada spends in their areas. As I said at the outset, their sole purpose is to emphasize the problem and not talk about the solution. Part of the solution is making certain that the federal Government and its agencies expedite the moneys they have budgeted under this capital program to get jobs moving in this country.
I have had consultations with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc). I have emphasized that it is absolutely essential for him and his Department to expedite each and every proposal that is budgeted for in his Department so that jobs, construction and a variety of economic spin-offs will result from those initiatives. Housing, Mr. Speaker, is vital. As the House knows, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) put additional sums of money into those programs. That also is part of the solution. It is not the entire solution and I would be less than honest if I tried to suggest in this Chamber, the highest court in this country, that we have all the solutions and answers. As a national Government, we have to accept our responsibilities and put into place the best programs based on the amounts of money available. Even the New Democratic Party has broken away from its longstanding tradition of not increasing the federal deficit any longer.
1 am somewhat saddened, however, by the NDP and the Conservative Party of Canada because there is a sense of hypocrisy when they talk about job creation and job security. In my own riding we are fighting tooth and nail to save two heavy water plants. The NDP laughed because at their national conference they said they were not in favour of the nuclear industry. They said in the House of Commons that the two heavy water plants should be closed. The Progressive Conservative Party said basically the same thing, in what the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said, in what the former minister of Finance said when he intimated in his
questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) that they ought to be closed. Yet Hon. Members opposite have the gall to come before this Chamber and say they are concerned, they want to have job creation, have jobs maintained and have security. I find a great deal of hypocrisy coming from the other side of the House, which concerns me greatly. I sat in this Chamber when the Hon. Member for Rosedale brought in his motion earlier this week. I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James. I tried to get one hint of some positive notion they might have in terms of job creation or of stimulating the Canadian economy, and absolutely nothing was forthcoming. It is intellectually dishonest to say, on the one hand, yes, I am concerned about the unemployed and, on the other hand, not to propose anything of assistance. I think that is shameful on the part of the Opposition in this Chamber.
The Conservative Party throughout this country has a responsibility. Every municipal government has a responsibility. We, the Government of Canada, also have a responsibility, and that is to put those programs into place so that we can assist in some real way in alleviating the unemployment problem in this country. The Minister has articulated today the number of programs which are in place and the additional moneys which will be forthcoming for those programs. It is not the panacea for all the ills of the unemployed. I think it would be dishonest on my part if I even suggested that. But it is equally dishonest for the Opposition Parties to stand in their place when there is a national concern like the unemployment issue and merely talk of the problem but provide no solution.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the Parties opposite are not doing their job. I think it is high time we put political rhetoric aside and collectively supported the Government's policy of six and five, that we supported the principles of fairness and sharing so that those that have, will share with those who do not. That is key, Mr. Speaker, in terms of changing around the Canadian economy. I suggest today, as I have in previous discussions with various Ministers, that the national Government has to continue to examine, through debate and various discussions, the programs we have put into place. We have to expedite some of our capital projects as quickly as possible. We have to do this with a demonstrated spirit of co-operation with other levels of Government and, indeed, the private sector. When inflation prices come down and interest rates come down, I think the road to recovery is not far off, but we must work together as Members of Parliament, not just solely as members of a constituency. The problems are too serious to be shoved aside.
In concluding my remarks, I want to go on record now, as a Member who represents a constituency which has high unemployment, as expressing appreciation to the Minister, to his Parliamentary Secretary and, indeed, to all the members of the Public Service of that Department, for the sensitivity and cooperation they have bestowed on my constituency which is encountering some grave times. I assure you, Mr. Speaker,
November 5, 1982

that the individuals in my constituency, who are hard pressed by unemployment, are aware of those who proposed the quick fix. It is just like the old medicine man when he came around with a bottle of medicine and tried to perpetrate a fraud on the people. The people knew this was not going to be a cure for the illness. I suggest to the Opposition, therefore, let us be honest, put the facts on the table and come to grips with our problems in a co-operative way. Let us have programs for Canadians and forget the political rhetoric which the Party opposite is so good at spreading in this country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is, as usual, a pleasure to follow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall). The Hon. Member and I have profoundly different views as to what is wrong in Canada and what needs to be done to make it right. The Parliamentary Secretary asks for solutions. He asks the Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada for solutions. Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have a solution without first understanding the problem. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has admitted we are in a recession. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his public television broadcast would have you believe that that recession is a consequence of the world-wide economic situation. You would have to be blind not to realize, that, of course, there is a world-wide problem. But other industrialized nations are not in recession. That is a unique Canadian condition caused by Canadians, and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy would like a solution to the current problem, can I make one very simple suggestion? There are 147 members of his Party elected to this House. There is a distance of 20 feet to be crossed over to this side of the House to cause a general federal election to be held in this country so that individual Canadians can have a choice as to the future economic direction of this country. That, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Hon. Members of this House, is the only solution that will work, because this is a recession brought on primarily, by fear of the federal Government of Canada and what it will do to individuals. It is a fear brought on by the track record of the present Government. It is fear brought to the hearts of Canadians by what the Members opposite have done to this country. It is fear brought to the hearts of Canadians by what the Members opposite have done to this country. It is fear brought on by both previous and current legislation. It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that in the two years since the Liberal Government came back into office some $18 billion-$18 billion-of capita) has left this country to be invested in homes, condominiums and factories in the U.S., and in oil wells and drilling platforms around the world. This money was chased out of this country-unwillingly, but chased-by federal Government policies, and with every dollar of that money there went jobs.
The fear has grown in Canadians, Mr. Speaker. Two days ago, on Tuesday of this week, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) introduced into the Senate of Canada a Bill which is a direct attack on property rights. There is a Bill before this Chamber, dealing with Public Works, which is a direct attack on the right of Canadians to
Supply
own property. These are two current pieces of legislation, and they go together, Mr. Speaker, with the National Energy Program which took 25 per cent of property held by Canadians in the oil industry on Canada lands, confiscated it without compensation. It was that particular piece of legislation, coupled with the Constitution, which created the fear in those who had money, those who were willing to create businesses and jobs in this country. It created that fear, Mr. Speaker, so investors took their money and left the country. For the balance of their lives they will not trust the leadership of the party which sits opposite the Conservatives in this House. The leader of that party have been supported by the 146 Members on the backbenches, and they have brought fear to this land through that support. They cannot correct the problem, Mr. Speaker, until the Government changes, until we create a new face on economic conditions in this country.
The victims, Mr. Speaker, are the unemployed. Right at this moment, as we speak in this Chamber, in some communities in this country, individual hard-working employees will be getting a letter from the president of their employer. That letter will say that unfortunately economic conditions are such that we have to close this factory, we have to close this mine, lay off 20 per cent of the people, and you are on the list. How many of us in this chamber stop to think how we would feel if that letter arrived on our desk and we had to climb on the subway or on the bus and go home and break the news to our families? How would we feel if we had to tell our families that the income we have been counting on to pay the mortgage on our house, to pay the rent or make car payments has all of a sudden been cut off?
For the average Canadian, Mr. Speaker, there is a sense of betrayal, a sense of bewilderment, because they do not comprehend where and how all this began. Well, Mr. Speaker, it began in the years 1972 to 1974. You can see it in the public accounts of Canada. The Prime Minister was in office, the Hon. John Turner was the Minister of Finance, but the Liberal Party was in a minority position, forced to depend on the New Democratic Party for support. When they look at the financial records of the Government of Canada, people may remember that those were good times. My family taught me that in good times you save a little for a rainy day. That is a sensible way to think about your own future and your own life. In those good times when the Government could have been saving a little for a rainy day, the Liberal Party and the NDP put Canada on the path of borrowing money. We are in good times, so let us go deeper in debt. In those years, Mr. Speaker, federal Government expenditures went up 30 per cent a year. Inflation was around 4 per cent or 5 per cent. And our debt has continued to grow to this day.
When I was elected in 1979, Mr. Speaker, 17 cents out of every federal tax dollar went to pay interest on the national debt. As I stand here three years later, it is over 30 cents. Back in 1979 the Government had 83 cents to spend and 17 cents to pay the interest. Today it is 30 cents on interest and 70 cents

November 5, 1982
Supply
left to provide unemployment insurance benefits, build an airport or try to stimulate the economy. What happens, Mr. Speaker, to individual Canadians if they borrow so much money that everything they earn goes to pay interest? They have nothing left for food. That is what the NDP Party and the Liberal Party did to this country.
As I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, I look with regret on the first seven days of the return of this Parliament. Last spring, one year ago, two years ago, three years ago, we were warning the Government that unemployment was bound to become a flood. We told the Government over and over again that when unemployment rises there are other social costs. Individuals and families are put under stress. And now unemployment has risen to the point where we can expect a 20 per cent increase in the number of Canadians suffering from the problems of alcoholism. We have about 20 per cent more suicides and heart attacks than we had a year ago, all of which are a direct result of the incease in unemployment we have experienced in the past year.
We stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, and asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), if she was planning for that eventuality, what extra money she would provide for it. And we have been told with clarity: "No planning, no extra money. We cannot get it." Well, the reason they cannot get it is that they spent it when times were good. They did not save for a rainy day. Well, the rainy day is here and the Government does not have the money to help Canadians. But the Government bribed Canadians with borrowed money in order to be re-elected, and then the Members opposite have the gall to stand up and say: we do not have the money. But they never tell you why, Mr. Speaker. They do not remind you of the past decade and what they did and the bind they put Canadians in today.
We go to the Minister of Finance and review his public pronouncements in the last couple of weeks. We know there are 1.5 million unemployed Canadians out there and there are an awful lot more Canadians who make less money per hour today than they made a year ago. Incomes are dropping. The average adult person's income in this country has dropped enormously in the past 12 months. People are worried about buying food and about making their house payments. Then, because they are worried, we get the Minister of Finance standing up and going to news conferences and saying, "Now you can worry about your pension and about your family allowance payments. We do not think you are worried enough so we are going to make you worry some more. You do not have enough trouble putting food on your table, so we as a Cabinet are considering cutting out your family allowance payments and pensions". At a time when Canadians are worried enough, why do they do that? What positive value is served by the announcement that the Government is considering these moves, by the announcement: not today but maybe tomorrow? What does this uncertainty do to help this country?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it does nothing positive but it does a great deal that is negative to increase the distress level, the heart attacks, the suicides, the alcoholism and violence around
us. That is what it does. Yet the 146 Hon. Members opposite continue to support a leadership that does that to the nation at the worst possible time and in the worst possible way. Where is the sanity in that?
In December, 1979 the Progressive Conservative Party, under the leadership of the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) had been in office for nine short months. 1 should like to remind Canadians that in those nine short months the number of employed Canadians increased by 350,000 people- in nine months 350,000 more jobs were created, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who was the Minister of Finance of the day brought in a budget. All across the country learned people judged it to be the fairest budget in the world for the poor. It was the fairest budget for the poor in the decade of the seventies because it gave assistance to a broad range of Canadians and it gave a great deal of assistance to the really poor. At the same time, it encouraged Canadians to own their own home, it gave them the courage to start a small business. Young people dared to dream about owning a farm, or owning a piece of a large business through the stock system.
Built into that budget was the principle of encouraging Canadians to own, to invest and to produce. It encouraged Canadians from coast to coast to create jobs, and in nine months 350,000 jobs were created; that was 40,000 jobs per month, Mr. Speaker. In this last month we have lost 50,000 full-time jobs, Mr. Speaker. A loss of 50,000 jobs and a gain of 40,000 jobs means a difference of 90,000 jobs in a one-month period. That difference was brought about by a change in the attitude of one agency in society, that is, the federal Government.
For the New Democratic Party to put this motion and speak about their compassion for the unemployed is one thing-no one doubts their compassion-but their sanity is a different matter. When we had a government that was creating jobs for Canadians, they threw it out. I hope that the next time Canadians get a chance to vote in this country, they will remember that the New Democratic Party is culpable, is guilty, is a partner in responsibility for 1.5 million people being unemployed in this country today.
That situation exists as a direct consequence of the actions of the man who now leads that Party in the Province of Ontario. He moved the motion. He was the finance critic for that Party, but he did not have the brains to see the wisdom of the budget. He led people down the garden path, and now 1.5 million Canadians are suffering unnecessarily. He was supported in that exercise by the trickery of the leadership of the Party opposite, the Party that does not dare tell the Canadians the truth, the Party that says it does not have any money and tries to bamboozle people about why there is no money. The money is not available because that Party spent it when it should have been saving it. It has chased jobs out of the country through its policies, its attitudes and because of the
November 5, 1982

insane support by backbench Members of that Party for the leadership.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I offer one solution. It will be slow and painful but it will be positive. The solution for the unemployed in this country lies in a federal general election. This recession is the consequence of fear-fear of the leadership of this country. Until the leadership is changed and people Canadians can trust are elected, they will not have a chance and jobs will not be created.
Every day that this Parliament sits, more Canadians will lose their lifetime careers, will be made to depend on the social support system and will risk losing the dignity of being a productive member of society. True patriotism asks simply that seven people walk that 20 feet and start to help this country back to economic health.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate today and make some comments about the unemployment insurance fund. I will offer statistics which I hope will help people understand the impact of the increase in premiums.
Before I do so, however, may I thank the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) for his usual numbing insights into the performance of this Party. The more I listen to him the more I am able to repeat his speech by rote. I am surprised that he did not bring in Ghengis Khan or the Spanish Revolution today, two phenomena that he has managed to discuss in previous monologues. I look forward to hearing about them from that quarter the next time the Hon. Member speaks. I missed that part of his standard address today.


An Hon. Member:: He had only 20 minutes.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: As my colleague points out, he had only 20 minutes so he had to leave something out.
I am pleased to be able to make some comments about the unemployment insurance fund in the presence of the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). When he assumed the arduous task of changing and strengthening the unemployment insurance fund in the early 1970s, he could not have foreseen how valuable his contribution would be to the fabric of the country in tough times like these. So it is a great pleasure for me to point out that we have been able to draw on the strength of his ideas during this most difficult period.
The unemployment insurance fund is a vital safeguard. It is the first safety net for Canadians when they face the tragedy of unemployment. It was built with the funds of the workers, especially during periods of prosperity, and supported by Government funds, especially in tough times like these.
Every worker knows that the fund is there as a vital insurance plan. He contributes personally to that insurance and he expects responsible Government help and support when the contributions are not sufficient.
In this October statement, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) followed this principle. He strengthened the Government's assistance for the fund and asked those workers who
Supply
have the strength, who have the jobs and the resources, to contribute to the fund as well.
An increase in premiums was brought in on October 27. I should like to put the details of that on the record so that we may understand the consequences of this.
The new rates for 1983 are $2.33 for $100 of insurable earnings for an employee, and $3.22 for $100 of insurable earnings for the employer. The maximum insurable weekly earnings are rising to $385 in 1983. Therefore, the maximum weekly contributions per employee will rise to $8.86 and to $12.40 for the employer. The maximum annual contribution for an employee will rise to $460.72. It will rise to $645.01 for the employer. This is what we are asking ordinary Canadians to contribute to their fund, to their safety net, their insurance policy. At the same time the Government of Canada is contributing $1 billion to pick up the shortfall. At the moment, according to our projections, the fund is running a cumulative deficit of $6.5 billion. It will reach that state by the end of 1983.
If we went only to the insurance aspect of the fund, if we went only to the workers and said, "You must pick up the shortfall", the workers' premium would not be $2.30, it would be $3.75 per $100 of insurable earnings. If we did not go the insurance route, if we simply said that we should subsidize the fund from Government general revenues, then we would have added $3 billion to our deficit in 1983. In both cases, we felt those were too extreme. We felt that the premium increase all the way up to cover the deficit would have been too tough a blow on both the worker and the employer. Equally, as all parties in this House have said, we did not believe that $3 billion could be added on to the federal deficit at this time. So we compromised.
We asked the worker to pay an extra 65 cents a week for every $100 of insurable earnings. We asked the Government to pay $1 billion to soften the total cumulative deficit. What is the impact on the private sector? That is a 39.4 per cent increase in premiums. What is the impact of that on the private sector. In gross terms, the gross revenue is $2,189 million. But we need to remember that for both the worker and the employer, these premiums are tax deductible. We also need to remember that a large portion of the employer related contributions are coming from governments acting as employers.
When we make these calculations, we find that the private sector, in after-tax dollars, is going through a $1,400 million increase, not a $2,100 million increase, roughly two-thirds the gross size. The impact is considerably diminished. Also we need to remember that over the past year some very significant changes have been made in our tax measures.
1 listened with great interest when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) had some comments on the tax rate workers will pay over the coming year. I think he had some of his statistics somewhat wrong. I would like to point

November 5, 1982
Supply
out to him that there have been significant drops in the marginal tax rates. Those drops were increased in the November budget a year ago and are in place now.
We also saw an increase of $50 in the child tax credit for lower- and middle-income families. That increase was introduced in the June budget and it is in effect now. In the October statement, the Minister of Finance continued the tax free status of employer-paid health and dental plans.
These increases in the unemployment insurance plan premiums are not coming in a vacuum, they are coming along with decreases in some of the other taxes that ordinary people are paying.
Most important, and I keep coming back to this, we are following the principle that those who have resources, those who have the funds, those who have the strength, are joining with the Government to extend assistance at this time to those who need help the most.
It is this sense of sharing and compromise, this moderate course, that is typical of the Government's action in the June budget and in the October financial statement. In June, we introduced the six and five program. In that program, by looking at our expenses, by putting them under a magnifying glass, we found $3 billion that we took away from original allocations.
As some of our critics demanded, we could have used that $3 billion simply to reduce the deficit. Had we done so, where would the help be for farmers, fishermen, small-businessmen and the unemployed? Instead, the Government reallocated that money into vital programs for each of those sectors in Canada. In October, we used the same approach. In the October statement we found $1.4 billion that we were able to reallocate into more needy areas, reallocate for jobs and economic stimulation. We should see the October statements as a continuation of the trend started in the June budget, a continuation of the strength that we were able to develop during the initial stages of the six and five program.
We have seen over $4.4 billion reallocated since June into areas that will stimulate jobs and stimulate new economic activity in Canada.
Let us take a look at housing. Housing is a source of quick job creation. Consumers react speedily to this. We found $400 million for housing projects in June, and an additional $165 million in October. New home buyers have been universally praising the Government's $3,000 grant. Existing home owners have been praising the home renovations programs. Not only do people get actual benefit from those programs but, in addition to that, these programs create jobs very quickly.
In small business we have seen the creation of the small business investment grant program in June, and then the extension of the small business bond in October. We saw hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to job creation in June, and then in October the development of the NEED program.
Today in this House we have Bills in front of us to start the special interest subsidy program for farmers and fishermen.
That was a program first started in June. The Government cannot solve each and every one of our problems. We are trying to get that point across to Canadians as hard as we can. The time has come for co-operation in our economy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stressed that point over and over again in his three addresses to the country a short while ago.
The Government cannot solve all our problems, but we can do it together. What the Government is doing during these times is providing some leadership for Canadians. We have done that through the six and five program. Furthermore, the Government can cushion those people who are most in need. I have spoken about how we have reallocated $3 billion in June and an additional $1.4 billion in October. That provides a cushion for those people most in need.
The Government can encourage the economy to begin building and preparing for the day when recovery comes both at home and abroad. We have seen the $500 million that has gone into the NEED program which will help those workers most in need of it. This will also help companies, municipalities and communities across Canada to start on badly needed programs.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is in the House today. He is deeply involved in the rebuilding of the western rail system and the restructuring of the Crow rate so that the railroads can become major instruments for national prosperity over the next decade.
Finally, we have seen the Government stimulate the most sensitive sectors of our economy: housing, small business, forestry, fishing and agriculture. Many extra millions of dollars have been injected in those areas in order to help create jobs.
No one says that the premium increases for the unemployment insurance fund are desirable. We had to take a difficult situation and find a middle of the road course. We could have placed the entire burden on the worker and the employer. It would have been a crippling blow for them. We could have put the whole burden on the deficit, but that would have been an irresponsible move on our part. Instead, we shared and asked those of us who have jobs to contribute something, and then took the resources of the Government and contributed the remainder. That is the type of approach we have taken time and again for job creation and the development of an economic direction to prepare the country for economic recovery.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to take part in this Opposition day debate this afternoon. Since we have had the co-operation of the Government and, I assume, the Official Opposition, as the third NDP speaker I will try not to take up too much time of the House and will keep to my 15 fifteen minutes.
1 was particularly disturbed by the statement of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy)-sometimes called the Minister of unemployment-when he retaliated to
November 5, 1982

the criticism by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper). The Minister's approach is to criticize the person who attacks him and to adopt a defence posture, a stance which is often indefensible. In that manner, he tries to shift the blame for his failures back to the person who criticizes him.
We can cite appalling examples of unemployment program mix-ups and mismanagements which have occurred during the last year, especially over the last six months. This does not suggest that the people who administer unemployment insurance at the local level are incompetent. They have had to carry a tremendous load. This mismanagement suggests that there must be something wrong with the administration of the program in which there are many delays for those wishing to receive premiums. Hence we blame the Minister responsible.
A classic example was provided to me by our research department. It involves the situation in the City of Sudbury where half of the 4,000 claims made by the company- presumably INCO-were in error. Some of the claimants were overpaid, others were underpaid, and many had to wait for five weeks or more. As well, some were cut off entirely from receiving benefits.
While there have been some recent improvements, I would describe the entire program as a bureaucratic nightmare. I hope that the Minister will consider that specific case of Sudbury with quick dispatch. When we criticize the administration or how the Minister handles his role, I think it would behoove him to listen to that criticism, instead of retaliating.
I was here when the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mack-asey) brought in the unemployment insurance scheme. At that time it was considered too generous. At that time we heard much criticism and satirical remarks about the UIC ski team at Banff. They had their own T-shirts, we are told. However, there is no question that in modern society-especially one directed by this Government-unemployment insurance is a necessity.
Yet, I repeat, unemployment insurance delays are awesome. As I said, in Sudbury the delay is six to eight weeks. In Windsor, it is six weeks. There is a six to eight-week delay in Fort McMurray. It is eight weeks in Belleville, eight to ten weeks in Port Alberni and four weeks in Nelson. There is a 12-week delay in Vancouver. I realize that the Minister may find it distasteful for me to cite these examples and that he may find it somewhat nettlesome. He therefore attacks the people who make those criticisms. But these criticisms are made because the people who are facing these delays are average Canadians and they need that money desperately. Many of them are forced to go on welfare. In at least two ridings represented by Members of this Party, the Hon. Members for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), food distribution centres have been set up in their riding offices. Apparently, they have not only been deluged with serious offers of food but with requests for food from those offices. If that is the state of the nation, it is a most serious situation.
Defensiveness on the part of the Minister is unacceptable. There are all kinds of horror stories which I could list. I would
Supply
like to talk about one of those stories because it reflects the prevailing attitude in Canada. This constituent is trying to deal with impatient creditors. His business is one of about 8,000 to 10,000 that officially went bankrupt last year. We do not know how many more just quit. This constituent had to go on to social welfare, but because he had a suite which he was renting out in the basement he could not get full social welfare. He received $420 per month from the Human Resources Department and due to the interest rates he is obligated with a mortgage payment of $938. What will that man do? He is trapped. I am not suggesting that the Human Resources Department in the Province should either ignore his plight or pay the total amount because he is receiving income, but he is still trapped. He will lose his home in the same way he lost his business. This constituent said, "I hope to be back on my feet soon and become a regular part of the working community." I hope so too. He went on to say, "But for the time being I have to swallow my pride and beg for assistance." You see, Mr. Speaker, our culture assumes that if you need help you must be a failure in some way. I wrote back to the man and asked him whether he had paid into unemployment insurance or had paid taxes all his life. He apparently had. I told him, "Well, you have earned that. This is what these programs are all about. This is why they are provided". However, that is not the way people feel about them. People feel very degraded by after exhausting unemployment insurance benefits because they have to seek social assistance. I phoned my riding office today and it reports that the number of people coming into the office who have been forced to go to Human Resources has gone through the ceiling. Most of the people are trying to find other programs because they feel humiliated when they must go on welfare. It is the result of our attitude that somehow if one is poor or needs help, one is a bum. That is known as the lazy bastard theory of social welfare, the feeling that the only people who are obtaining assistance are the socially incompetent. I do not accept that theory and I did not think anyone else should, either.
Other people, notably the UGN, the United Way in my riding, have written to me. They want some money from the community development grants to provide unemployment support centres. Why do we need unemployment support centres? We have human resources offices, unemployment insurance offices and offices of Members of Parliament. We probably even have regional desks so that citizens can reach government. What for? For assistance in job searching, counselling, personal situations, referrals, other facilities, charities and other things. So it is very serious matter in many ridings. Mine is one of the least touched, in the lower mainland, amounting to 11 per cent, because there are a tremendous variety of occupations in my area and we are part of an agricultural and fishing area. We provide a transport corridor. It is a suburban area, and we also have some manufacturing. Many other areas of B.C. are far worse off than mine.

November 5, 1982
Supply
Let me turn from the litany of losses to something else. Today I raised a question concerning job creation on the railways. I directed it to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and it was answered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I am glad the Minister of Transport is here because I simply do not understand the kind of answers I received from him when I asked him the question. Apparently the situation amounts to a shell game by the Government which has allotted, as a conerstone of its employment policies over the next year, some $400 million for the upgrading of the railways, to stimulate some employment. 1 do not know whether the Minister is using the figure of $25,000 per job or whatever. All I know is that it will supposedly produce about one-tenth of the employment we need. However, since the total rail program will supposedly run until 1991 and create 400,000 jobs and he will put in $400 million this year alone, to begin with, and I do not know how many more millions of dollars will be required, I asked the Minister whether he could guarantee that there would be no employment cuts to the railways. The railways have been losing 5,500 jobs a year on an average since 1976. He could not guarantee me that. What concerns me is that all we will do will be to pump more money into the railways for the purposes of upgrading and creating employment, yet we will continue to lose employment. 1 find that hard to understand. I frankly find that to be very confusing because the projections for investment in the railways over the next year have been exactly what they have been over the last two years, that is, $1.3 billion. We are losing employment on the railways at the rate of 5,000 or more jobs each year on the average, since 1976. If the railways do not increase their investment in their own rolling stock, upgrading, track enhancement and improvement, then it will be up to the Government. If the Government is to put in money just to let the railways off the hook, my Party and I think we should have equity. The Minister gets up. Yes, I am suggesting that perhaps we should even nationalize the CNR-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Good!


Mark Willson Rose: -because the Minister says that it is a commercial venture and is not part of social welfare. I have the facts right here in my hand. However, if he looks at the charter of the CNR, and it decided to bail out a couple of bankrupt railway companies when it was first established, its objective is for enhancement and improvement-and I have forgotten the precise word, but in other words its objective is to assist and enhance Canada. I do not have the right quote in my hand at the moment. I have lost it in this pile of papers, but if I find it, I will read it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It must have something to do with transportation.


Mark Willson Rose: If it is not to the benefit of Canada, then why do we have a national railway? Why do we have a railway as a Crown corporation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: For transportation purposes.


Mark Willson Rose: However, if it is just another business with no social purpose other than that, then I do not see much point in having it as a Crown corporation. We might as well sell it off.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is what the Government will do.


Mark Willson Rose: Well, no, they did not want it in the first place.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: When it starts making money.


Mark Willson Rose: Oh, I see. Bandeen has said it will be sold. Where is Bandeen now? He has gone on to some insurance company. Anyway, I object to that. We will pump more money into the railways, they will take that money and they will not create jobs. If they do not create jobs, how can that be a core of a job creating program? On Wednesday the Minister of Finance said that $400 million would be pumped into the railways for job creation-that is a third of the $1.2 billion he plans to use. The Minister is shaking his head.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Four hundred million is in addition to the $3.2 billion over the next four years for the modernization of western rail transportation.


Mark Willson Rose: The bottom line is, will it be job-creative or not? If the railways continue to cut their work force, how on earth will that create jobs? The Minister is shaking his head. It is too difficult, too complex for this Member to understand. Therefore, I must be wrong. The money is to be used for tracks and will employ the steel plants, but in the meantime the railways will be nationalized and improved in such a way that they will not need as many people. That is probably what he is suggesting.
The problem with our economic policies and employment strategies is that, first, they have been short-term and, second, they have been wrongheaded. We have been spending all kinds of money to push megaprojects, such as drilling in the Beaufort Sea. What about provinding a few small social welfare bits for Dome Petroleum? That ought to be a good idea, and perhaps a few more, if they really need it. Ignore the guy who will lose his home. Consider Hibernia and the oilsands. The Government will steal from alternative energy sources, from conservation, from the CHIP program and give it to what? Nukes? Will it give money toward stockpiling more heavy water down in Canso or Cape Breton, where there are two plants and $800 million was written off last year? So we have all kinds of money for certain things and not for others. The Nova Scotia Federation of Labour says, "Do it now. Let us start some upgrading and expansion". However, we do not get that. We are asked to pull together. We are asked to do some vague thing called pulling together. We are experiencing business bankruptcies, people are out of work, taxes are rising, but what have we done? The Prime Minister says, "Pull together. We must have unity and co-operation". Who's fault is it? Who has been in the Government for these past 14 years? One cannot blame it all on the municipalities or on world conditions. Hon. Members opposite must bear some of the blame. Today the Prime Minister had the crushing gall to say that he will appoint a former Minister of Finance to tell us
November 5, 1982

what is wrong with our economic policy. That is the height of ludicrousness, if that is a word. He called for us to help him through co-operation to get us out of this mess and said that the way to do it was through six and five.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came into office in 1968 we were second in the world in terms of standard of living. Now we are fourteenth. Some people say that all countries in the western world and in the OECD have problems, but they do not have the unemployment problems that we have. Certainly they do not have the rates of unemployment which we are experiencing. For example, Germany and Japan have half the rate of Canada.
I will tell the House what is wrong with Canada. We are a mega-based, resource-based economy. When a world recession comes along, we have nothing to back it up. We have lost manufacturing jobs by the thousands. I could refer to the list of statistics, but who would want to refer to a list anyway? As a matter of fact, I heard that the level of oratory in the United States Senate fell markedly when people stopped using their emotions and began to quote statistics. Statistics are not good for oratory because no one likes numbers. There are so many big numbers around that no one really listens to them, anyway.
At the present time $100 million is being spent each year on nuclear research and the stockpiling of lethal poisons. Would it not be better to spend it on solar or double-glazed windows? Would it not be better to spend it on things which would create employment at a lot less money per job? 1 think we should. People are going out of business because of cutbacks, but look at the money the Government has taken out of the pockets of people. Naturally businesses will go bankrupt if people are paying most of their money out in interest rates on mortgages. In that event they do not have much left to purchase cars or bicycles; some do not have enough to purchase food. It is not sensible.
We will have five and six on the people but they will not touch oil, which is the prime inflationary factor in Canada today. It will go up again on January 1. I know there is an agreement. I know it will make many people unhappy, but many more people will be unhappy when they have to put away their cars because they have no other option.
They are subsidizing nuclear sales abroad to Mexico. They have subsidized interest rates for Korea or for whatever tin pot dictator comes around wanting to buy one. They will break the contracts with retired public servants. They will allow the dollar to go way down and force many people into bankruptcy. They will scapegoat the Public Service. There will be 800,000 families on welfare by the end of the year; 10,000 more each month. They tell the young that they cannot have jobs. They tell them that they cannot obtain an education by raising the fees. They tell people that they cannot expect to own their own homes. They tell the elderly that they cannot have their indexed pensions because indexing is too expensive and that they must work until they drop.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Even if they have paid for them.
Supply


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, even if they paid for them. We are accused of being negative. We are accused of carping and being compassionate at the same time, compassionate to the working and the poor and carping to the Liberal Government. There is no way that they can dutch and dodge and shell-game their way out of this one. They have done it to us.
What do we suggest? Re-forestation would be one suggestion. There should be vast expansion, not lay-offs, in the rail yards. There was some money in the budget speech of last Wednesday for co-op housing. We run out of it in my riding in March of every year. We need Government and industry cooperation in terms of investment. Perhaps we do not need any more McDonald stands with their imported buns. If the Government wants to cut money, it could cut a bunch of those F-18s. I know they make nice toys, but we might as well be using slingshots. There are many useful things we could do through the municipalities to put people to work.
1 am glad we have the community development grant. It was increased in my riding from $100,000 last year to $400,000 this year. I am very pleased by the amount of money, but why is my riding getting it? It is because the labour force survey indicates that things are much more rotten in my riding. I say to the Government, as I thank it for allowing me to speak, even if its Members did not listen very much, that it probably has three options. They can either lead, which they have not been doing, or they can follow, which they do not like to do because they are Liberals, or they can step down and get the hell out of the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bosley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important motion on an important subject, and everyone in the House knows it. But there is also a courtesy which occurs at the time of a national convention. As I understand the rules of the House, the normal speaking pattern at this time would be to go to the Government benches, then to our benches-and we have a speaker ready to go-and back to the Government benches. It being an NDP day I would suggest, as a matter of both courtesy to the Government Members who have an event which they would like to attend and as a courtesy to the mover of the motion, that we end the debate at this point, so that those on the other side who wish to attend their annual convention today could do so, so that the New Democratic Party would have had, through the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), the closing speech.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, this subject was broached a little earlier. It is not usual that we would close debate on an Opposition day on an important subject earlier than normal. It is true that the New Democratic Party has had more than its share of time. From that point of view I am grateful, and I have said so in my previous remarks. I would propose an early adjournment provided it were generally known that we have had our time and that no further NDP speakers would have had the floor, anyway. This was a courtesy on the part of the Members of the Official Opposition who have given up their speaking time, which was accepted by the Government.

November 5, 1982
Supply
[ Translation]


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, 1 merely wish to add my comments to those concerning comments by the Member of the New Democratic Party, namely, that you should alternate between the official opposition and the government side. Since this is our second opposition day this week and we have had ample time to speak to the matter, although it is indeed very important, we should agree to call it five o'clock.


John William Bosley: I want to ensure that the record shows my Party is prepared to give up its time by reason of courtesy only and that we regard the subject just as important as Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party..


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I find that acceptable. 1 would also like to say that if the debate does not end we have other Members who are prepared to participate, as do the other Parties. We are unlikely to get the floor anyway, so it is under those conditions that we put forward our agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House seems to have reached an agreement, but I think it would be fair to mention
to the Hon. Member from Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) that the Chair very often attempts on an Opposition day, with respect to either Opposition Party, to see to it that the Party has a representative to speak and to close the debate. If the debate were to continue, it would be my intention to attempt to provide further time for the New Democratic Party.
If the House is satisfied under the circumstances to close down a little early-and this is the impression I have from the representatives of the three Parties who have spoken-then it will do so. The easy way to find out is by simply putting it to Hon. Members. Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, by unanimous consent, it being five o'clock-and I might indicate that Opposition Parties have expressed a great courtesy to the Liberal Party which has its convention this week-the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m.
At 4.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 8, 1982