1982-07-09

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. A record 1,303,000 Canadians were out of work in June. This represents a rise of 0.7 per cent from the month previous, and is 10.9 per cent of the work force. For the tenth month in a row there was an increase in the number of jobs lost in the country. In one year 435,000 have disappeared, 121,000 of them last month. Ontario was hardest hit with a loss of 50,000 jobs. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the Prime Minister, whose disastrous economic policies and continued deficit spending have caused this tragic unemployment situation, immediately call a general election so Canadians, including those out of work, can pass judgment on how he is doing his job and whether he should be allowed to keep it. The only people who deserve to be unemployed in this country are the ones who are running it into the ground.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, in view of the current crisis in job losses in Canada, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That the government today relax its rules on FIR A and make a positive effort to encourage foreign investment in Canadian industry which in turn will create jobs and alleviate the current unemployment crisis.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, in light of the loss of 19,000 more jobs in British Columbia, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to visit British Columbia to experience the unemployment situation personally and to return forthwith to Ottawa to prepare a new budget which will give Canadians some confidence in their government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Unemployed industrial workers in and around the hard hit West Kootenay community of Salmo, B.C., are angry and cannot understand why taxpayers' dollars have been spent to fill scarce local jobs with applicants from across the country. While the company involved has now agreed to hire local people first, this does not change the fact that such government subsidy of cross-country moving costs, shuffling unemployed Canadians from one jobless area to another, is not only wasteful and unproductive but aggravates already strong feelings of regional resentment and anger. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the House urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to review immediately the administration of the Manpower mobility assistance program, instruct his officials at the sending end to consult his officials at the receiving end before the fact of approval, and stop playing musical chairs with the livelihoods and tax dollars of Canadians.


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

July 9, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The unemployment problem in Atlantic Canada would be helped significantly if the federal government were to accelerate a number of major projects with which there have been avoidable delays and for which money has long ago been budgeted. In Prince Edward Island, for example, the national headquarters for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the new Charlottetown airport terminal building have been stalled through sheer federal inertia. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
[DOT] (mo)
That the cabinet establish a special ad hoc committee to identify such projects throughout the Atlantic provinces with an eye to speeding them up to create jobs in the current period of mass unemployment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, some of us believe that the continent of South and Central America is at the beginning of an extended growth cycle and that it will be looking increasingly to Canada for expanding trade and technical assistance, and for expanded diplomatic relationships. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras):
That the government give serious study and consideration to expanding Canada's relations with Latin America, and review fully the Canadian government's participation in the Organization of American States.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power in 1968, Liberal economic policies have been to spend massive amounts of taxpayers' money on questionable programs until they achieve the highest annual debt in the history of the country. At the same time they adopted a socialist, left-wing, centralist mentality which allowed for no flexibility in the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and in general they have reflected an attitude that discouraged foreign investment, coupled with the stubborn fixation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) with his new energy program which has caused the destruction of the oil industry in Canada, moved 60 per cent of our oil rigs out of our country, terminated the progress of two tar sands plants and therefore negatively affected both the energy industry of western Canada and the manufacturing basin of Ontario and Quebec. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the Liberal government, which is causing massive unemployment throughout Canada, take a sabbatical by calling a federal election so that members of the Liberal Party can learn from first-hand experience what unemployment is all about.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government has deindexed public service pensions which have been paid for by public servants through a 1 per cent pay levy, and that the Liberal members for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), Hull (Mr. Isabelle), Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau), and Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), have described this budgetary measure as "unacceptable", 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House calls on the Liberal members I have named to stand by their convictions and join the New Democratic Party in voting against legislation to implement the Liberal Party's 6 per cent dream world.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 9, 1982


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas Standing Order 65(l)(t) of the House of Commons requires that the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines study all reports, orders, agreements, regulations, directions and approvals mentioned in Section 12, 13, 14, 15 and 22 of the Northern Pipeline Act and report thereon to Parliament at least three times each session, and whereas during the current session the chairman of the committee has neglected and refused to call a meeting of the said standing committee for that purpose, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House orders its Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines to comply with Standing Order 65(1 )(t).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the depressed state of the fishing industry on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, involving bankruptcies and unemployment; in view of the urgent need to provide low interest assistance to fishermen and processors; and in view of the confused and inconclusive answers from both the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) regarding the availability of the $400 million budget allocation to fishermen and processors to meet past debts and ongoing operating capital requirements, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
[DOT] (U15)
That the House direct the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to publish immediately precise details of what portion of the S400 million budget allocation for small business will be available to fishermen and processors, under what conditions, and to clarify what part of the $400 million will be available through the Small Business Development Bond.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, in view of the very regrettable absence of the Minister of Finance this morning, I direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I might say in passing that the Minister of Finance has his priorities mixed up. The unemployment figures this morning are staggering, and he ought to be in the House to listen to questions.
I am sure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will recall that last January the unemployment rate in this country stood at 8.6 per cent. By April it had climbed to 9 per cent, and by June, last month, it was up to 10.2 per cent. This morning the published figures put the unemployment level in this country at 10.9 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Edward Crombie: It is the highest in recorded history. We have an increase of 52 per cent in unemployment in Canada in one year. We have 435,000 jobs lost in one year alone, and 62,000 of them in just the last month.
Clearly the government's programs are not working and it has instilled absolutely no confidence that it can manage the economy. What will the Minister of Employment and Immigration do about this situation?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, this morning's figures on unemployment only underline the case that we have been making, that this is a very serious situation in Canada.


Mr. Nowlan:: You created it.


Mr. Broadbent:: You did create it.


Lloyd Axworthy: I wish the members in that corner would take it seriously.


Mr. Deans:: We have been trying to get you to do something about it for years.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is a serious problem which we must do something about. I want to point out to the hon. member, since he raised the issue, that the Minister of Finance is meeting this morning with a delegation from the labour movement in Canada in an attempt to engage them in part of a co-operative effort and a coalition to come to grips with the economic problems.
The figures this morning show that this is an issue which must be addressed by all Canadians, whether business, labour or in government, in a concerted and co-operative way. It is not a time for fractious dispute. It is time for Canadians to pull together to beat the problem and come to grips with it. It is not

July 9, 1982
Oral Questions
the fault or blame of any one group or sector; it is a problem which must be attacked by all Canadians.


IMPLEMENTATION OF JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I think that probably the most devastating impact shown in the statistics this morning comes in those towns, villages and small cities across the country which have been affected, particularly those one industry towns where unemployment is so great that those communities find themselves worrying about their very survival.
The statistics are worth considering. This morning Kamloops has an unemployment rate of 19.6 per cent. It was 8.9 per cent last year. Prince George has an unemployment level this morning of 17.7 per cent. Last year it was 3.8 per cent. Chicoutimi has a 16.1 per cent unemployment level. Hamilton is 12.3 per cent.
These programs which the minister keeps talking about are not being delivered on the street-real jobs to real people who have real needs. When will the Minister of Employment and Immigration look at those programs and ensure that they are implemented?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the hon. member is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stevens:: That is obvious. It is unemployment.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that in many of those communities that the hon. member has mentioned this government is applying special programs-


An hon. Member:: They are not working.


Lloyd Axworthy: -dealing with employment development. In this year's budget alone we have doubled the amount of money going into direct employment creation so that we can provide special responses, as we are now providing in over 30 communities.
In my department alone this year, because of the additions in the budget, we are spending over $650 million in direct job-creation programs which will provide employment opportunities for close to 200,000 Canadians. Those programs are directed at the very communities mentioned by the hon. member, those that are hardest hit by lay-offs or by the downturn in the economy.
In Prince George and in Alberni, where the lumber industry has had a serious downturn because of the decline in the international housing market, we are presently implementing special employment programs, and the Canada community development project that we have announced will provide additional resources to those communities to try to provide
transition and bridging in what we all admit is a very difficult, very serious and very tragic time for many of these workers.


MINISTER'S ROLE
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, if the minister is wondering what we are talking about this morning, what we are talking about is the fact that unemployment has gone up 52 per cent in one year. Day after day and week after week this minister and this government keep inventing programs out of whole cloth, inventing them from thin air, quoting figures, quoting statistics, and quoting programs that have no reality. These are statistics which are real, and behind those statistics are real people being hurt, and not being helped by the minister's programs. He can quote figures all he likes, but they are not being helped. When will the minister take that department of his and do something with it in order to create jobs for people and, at the same time, help the Minister of Finance gain some confidence among the Canadian people that this government can manage the economy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is seriously mistaken when he says that these programs are not helping people. Under our work-sharing program, we have averted close to 52,000 lay-offs in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Over 115,000 workers are involved in that program. We have provided employment for 55,000 students.


Ian Deans: You kept interest rates too high.


Lloyd Axworthy: Under these programs of direct job creation we will provide employment for over 100,000 Canadians right across Canada. So, when the hon. member and the opposition attempt to say that the people are not being helped, they are simply flying in the face of reality. I would say to them that they should get their act together. We just heard from the hon. member for Crowfoot that we should cut the deficit and programs, and now we are hearing from this hon. member who said we should add to them. When will they get their act straight so that Canadians will have a sense that there is a united approach to these programs in Canada and not the kind of flim-flam that we get from members of the opposition?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I expected that the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister would be present in the House today to report on the meeting
July 9, 1982

they held yesterday with the business leaders of the country. These companies with which they met yesterday are the major hope for job creation in the country because they are the ones which create the work for the people who are unemployed today. 1 understand that at the meeting yesterday the participants presented the government with a very, very pessimistic outlook of more bankruptcies, more lay-offs, no hope at the end of the tunnel, in fact the most pessimistic outlook that has been presented in meetings of this sort with the government.
My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and of the Prime Minister. Since the recent budget has done nothing to turn around the level of confidence of the people who were present at the meeting yesterday, is the government giving any consideration at all to the serious suggestions which were made at the meeting yesterday, in particular the suggestion to reduce the level of interest rates by getting the level of the budget deficit under some degree of control? Interest rates are the most serious problem in the country today.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the meeting yesterday with business leaders was a very positive one. The chief point coming out of it was the very strong degree of support expressed by business leaders for the new budget and its approach. That was the basic point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I do not think that the minister was at the meeting, because if he had been at the meeting-


Some hon. Members:: Were you?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -he would have known. I have been speaking with a number of the gentlemen who were at that meeting and I was specifically told that while they agreed with the 5 per cent and 6 per cent wage restraint, they were very upset over the level of the government deficit.


PROPOSALS MADE BY BUSINESS LEADERS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: I ask the minister a specific question: is the government giving any thought whatsoever to the very serious proposals made at the meeting yesterday to reduce the size of the government deficit so that interest rates can be reduced and so that we can get some level of confidence? Are the political and philosophical obstacles that the government has put in their way the main reason why it is not responding to the serious proposals made by these businessmen yesterday?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, in the budget, which was strongly supported publicly by a number of the business leaders who went to that meeting, we said that we were concerned about the deficit and that we had rejected advice to allow it to increase. Our basic
Oral Questions
approach is that, bringing about recovery by the means set out in the budget, we will be on the path to reducing the deficit. That is why we are calling for people in this country to work together to achieve the objectives of the budget. I suggest to my hon. friend he adopt the same positive spirit as those business leaders. If that were the case, we would have a much better result than we are getting now in terms of the response from the opposition to our very constructive budget.


GOVERNMENT APPEAL TO BUSINESS AND LABOUR FOR COOPERATION AND CONSENSUS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns the very important question of co-operation in Canada right now. Two ministers just referred to the need for that. Yesterday the Prime Minister received support from the business community for a wage control policy, which is hardly surprising because it will increase their profitability. We should not be surprised at that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I am not criticizing them for that. I am saying it is hardly new. The business community supports a program that will hold down inflation. My question concerns the other side of the economic ledger.
The government has acknowledged that unemployment will remain at the present level for the rest of the year. The government said there will be no legislation that will effectively control prices. Considering that a moral approach asking for co-operation in Canada requires fairness in all sections of the community, is it surprising that total support has not been forthcoming from all sectors? Is it surprising that there is not consensus when there is no fairness?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like first to point out to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that the emphasis in those discussions yesterday, as it is in discussions today with leaders of the trade union movement, is on how we can cooperate to deal with the fundamental problem of inflation so that we can bring the inflation rate down and thereby bring interest rates down, stimulate the economy and create jobs. That is the fundamental formula for the co-operation we must establish for all Canadians, to recognize that each sector of the economy must play a part. In some cases it is a restraint on prices and incomes, in others on wages, and in others on the kind of activities that we have in government.
The basic signal put forward in the budget last week is that we in the federal government are trying to lead by example, to show what we can do in our sector, asking public servants to join us in that effort and asking Members of Parliament and members of cabinet to try to regulate prices that are under our control, but we do not want to impose a control system that is legislated. We want one that is based on the consensus and agreement of society, one that does not impose controls.
19172

July 9, 1982
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF JOB-CREATION MEASURES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, you cannot have consensus and co-operation across this country if you are not prepared to be fair to the vast majority of the people, the ordinary working Canadians. That is clear. The minister talked of the need to do something about inflation. Workers have some concern about prices and some real concern about job security. Will the minister confirm that the job-creating provisions in the budget will, in the coming year, create fewer jobs than we lost in the last four weeks in this country?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the provisions of the budget, if you look at the incentives established for direct job creation, will add a minimum of 68,000 jobs. Leverage will be established through housing initiatives. HUDAC estimated this will provide over 150,000 jobs in the construction area. The stimulus will come through the economic development portions of the program. This will in itself add up to 300,000 or 400,000 new jobs that we can provide through direct initiatives by this government.
Far more important than that is to establish the basic environment that will provide for the long-term development of permanent jobs. To do that, we must bring the inflation rate down and get the economy in order. The budget's purpose is the basic establishment of that goal to stabilize the economic turbulence that we are in so that we can have a long-term job-creation program that will be equally shared by all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if the government wanted tc bring inflation down it would have had the courage and fairness to bring in effective legislation controlling prices. The minister knows that the government has not done that at all.
As a preamble to my final question I would like to say that the parts of the budget which stipulate specific job-creation programs forecast a total for the coming year of 53,000 jobs, and in the past four weeks we have lost 62,000 jobs. That, I suggest, is a lamentable record and program for a Liberal government. 1 would ask, in that context, does the government have in the summer coming weeks one new policy, one new program that will provide some ray of hope to all those Canadians who either would like to have a job or would like to remain confident that they will retain the jobs they now have.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, let me first point out that the hon. member's figures are wrong. I do not know who is doing his calculations but they should obviously enrol in one of our
retraining programs in order to get upgrading in mathematics. They simply cannot add very well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that through the direct-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if they do not want to speak the truth, then there is not much point in having a question period. We are trying to provide honest answers for them.
The fact of the matter is that the direct employment job-creation provision was a $450 million addition which will create at minimum 68,000 jobs-which is even more than the minister said himself. In addition to that, there is a stimulus provided under the housing portions which will provide an additional 100,000 plus jobs. There is additional money that is going to the economic development envelope which will provide more stimulus in research and development, in export development, and in industrial incentives. Those add up to far more jobs. I would say, Madam Speaker, that the opposition could be far more helpful in this difficult period if rather than engaging in talking about fictitious programs and fictitious figures, they themselves would provide much more assistance to Canadians if they joined in with far more co-operation in order to help to get the economy going, instead of trying to create fear and hysteria by using the question period to propagate false figures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who fails to recognize that our workers tell us that by the time the red tape is cut on those programs they are all going to be out of work. In British Columbia conditions are so bad that D8 tractors are going at auction for $18,000 or $16,000, when they are worth about $100,000. People are burning the forests in order to create jobs?


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


Pat Carney: If the minister is aware of the unemployment problems in British Columbia, how can he have the audacity to ask union leaders to settle for a 6 per cent cap on wages when he has twice voted for a budget measure which places an unfair and inequitable tax on job-related expenses, a tax which makes our workers uncompetitive and keeps them off their jobs. How can he ask the union leaders to restrict themselves
July 9, 1982

to a 6 per cent increase and then vote for a tax that, in British Columbia, amounts to $3 an hour on workers?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that I visited British Columbia recently, and I will be there again on Monday to talk to employers and unions about job creation and labour market programs. It was clear in those discussions, when you talked with both employers and members of the unions that the greatest danger to the competitive position of the lumber industry in British Columbia in disposing of its product is the fact that our wage settlements are running substantially ahead of those in the United States.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is a lie.


Mr. Skelly:: It is absolutely wrong; it is the truth we need in here.


Lloyd Axworthy: We must bring them down. That is the great danger we face in terms of establishing a program in this country, to make sure that we can compete. In the meantime, Madam Speaker, we are attempting to provide for bridging programs in the forestry industry, in the mining industry and in the fishing industry, to ensure that those workers are able to maintain their employment. We have signed co-operative arrangements with the provincial government, with unions, and with the employers of those areas, to keep those people at work during this period of time.


Madam Speaker:: Did I hear an hon. member in one corner of the House say "That is a lie"?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: Would that hon. member, whoever he is, withdraw those words which are considered to be unparliamentary?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: No, I will not, Madam Speaker, because it is exactly true. The industry has said it, the union has said it, everyone has said it, the ITC has said it. If the minister can admit that he was wrong, then I will withdraw my accusation. Other than that it will stand, and thousands of people will stand behind it.


Madam Speaker:: I do not want to delay the question period unduly but I am afraid I cannot let that go by. The hon. member knows that this is unparliamentary language and that he should not be using it in regard to another member's statement. I ask him again to co-operate with the House, to conform with the usages of this House and to withdraw those words.
The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: As a courtesy to the House and to yourself, Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the terminology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: 1 thank the hon. member.


PENSIONS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She assured the House yesterday that Canadians who are most in need will be protected and will not have to face the 6 per cent limit on their income announced for pensioners and civil servants in the budget. Since ministerial aides and the Justice department lawyers have just been awarded salary increases of 10 per cent to 11 per cent, does the minister consider these federal government employees to be more in need than pensioners?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I do not see why that question was addressed to me. I never spoke of course of a comparison with employees. I am talking of Canadians on fixed incomes and those most in need. They make up 55 per cent of all the pensioners in Canada. They will receive, for all the coming months, the full indexation of their pensions. In fact their supplements will be doubly indexed to make sure that they do not lose a penny. They will be fully covered for actual inflation. That is extremely important, and we will stick to that policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As he is playing fast and loose with the figures I want to remind him, by quoting from Senate Hansard, page 4491, June 30, 1982, that the government House leader in the Senate, speaking for the government, said:
There are therefore no new allocations for employment programs.
Now, who speaks for the government? If you take into account the hidden unemployment, there are today over 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. The minister says he has jobs for
200,000.	What is he going to do for the other 1,300,000?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in relation to the first part of the question I will also have to check Hansard. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. The budget document is there to be seen. There are very specific new allocations of substantial amounts of money for alternative job-creation programs.

July 9, 1982
Oral Questions
Madam Speaker, we will readily admit that one cannot put all the people back to work in direct government employment programs of the government. It must be done through a combination of efforts of the private sector, getting business investment started, getting companies back on an even keel. That is the most healthy way to put people back to work. That is why this budget has as its fundamental message the need to provide for a coalition of interest between business and labour and the government at all levels to combine our efforts to provide for the stabilization of this economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it is not difficult to understand why the country has lost confidence in the government when you hear that minister getting up and mouthing these insignificant statements which he cannot support.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Watch your blood pressure!


James Aloysius McGrath: If my blood pressure is up, Madam Speaker, it is because we have a tragedy in this country. Behind every one of these 1.5 million unemployed there is a potential for human tragedy. He can account for jobs only for 200,000 of them. The government leader in the Senate said there are no new programs. 1 ask the minister who has the responsibility, what initiatives can we expect from this government to address this tragedy of unprecedented proportions facing 1.5 million Canadians who have to suffer, by the way, the same consequences of inflation as those who are lucky enough to have jobs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in the short time allowed in question period it is impossible to describe the full range of initiatives which have been taken. This morning we established a new program for the footwear industry to provide for additional employment protection for workers in that sector.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: In previous weeks the minister who sits beside me also provided for additional job creation through major sales abroad in relation to Bombardier and other companies. The Minister of Transport has taken an initiative which will provide close to 50,000 or 60,000 new jobs in western Canada through a major modernization of the transportation system. The list is far longer than I have time in the question period to give, but there is no question that the budget sets a basic framework for providing initiatives to the private
sector while at the same time providing transitional assistance for those who are seasonally unemployed or being laid off.
We have provided protection from lay-offs for close to 52,000 workers through work sharing. We have a billion dollar new training bill which was given Royal Assent two nights ago which will allow for the retraining of a quarter of a million Canadians in new training projects.
The list could go on, but the point is that we cannot do it ourselves. We need the co-operation of hon. members opposite. We would like them to go to their ridings and recruit the cooperation of unions and businessmen to get the economy working again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ONE HUNDRED PER CENT UNEMPLOYMENT IN YUKON TOWNS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration a question concerning unemployment in Yukon. It has reached 100 per cent in Elsa; the whole town is closing down. It has reached 100 per cent in Faro; 600 families are affected by lay-offs. Whitehorse Copper is closing down completely at the end of December. The entire mining industry in Yukon is shutting down. What programs is the minister going to create?


Mr. Rossi:: Change the MP.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member might think unemployment in Yukon is funny. I can tell him it is far more serious there than the figures which have been bandied about here.


Mr. Cousineau:: Question.


Erik Nielsen: I see the minister consulting the Minister of State for Mines. The total industry is shutting down. What is he going to do to provide jobs for those workers and relieve the hardship of those families?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we are fully aware of the problems faced by the mining industry due to the international downturn in commodity prices. The Minister of State for Mines has been meeting this week-in fact this morning-with members of the mining industry to see what remedial measures might be undertaken during this period of time.
This government does not have the capacity by itself to reconstruct totally the entire mining industry around the world. Difficulties are being faced in Canada as well as at every mine around the world. In the meantime we are sensitive to the problem. We have put forward offers respecting worksharing programs and are providing alternative employment programs through Section 38. The Minister of State for Mines is discussing those programs. Similar programs are being implemented now in the province of Ontario. We will do as much as we can, working with the industry, to provide help, but we have to come to grips with the over-all economic situation, which is international as well as national in its scope.
July 9, 1982

I repeat that that is something which really requires a total national effort. That is the kind of basic leadership being provided through the budget, and we are trying to engage the co-operation of hon. members opposite so that we can move toward recovery.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, the government has just brought in a budget with no specific program for youth unemployment, yet Statistics Canada tells us today that fully one quarter of the young people of this country are unemployed. In Quebec some 37.6 per cent of the young people are unemployed. In Ontario 24.4 per cent are unemployed. In British Columbia, where 29.8 per cent of the youth are unemployed, that number is double the level of last year.
Just how can the Minister of Employment and Immigration leave fully one quarter of the youth of this country without jobs, without any hope for the future and no opportunity to contribute in a positive way to the development of the country?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, again I point out, for the interest and attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, that in fact a substantial proportion of the funds which are allocated under the new direct job-creation programs are directed toward providing help and assistance for young people to get employment. We have allocated $120 million for a summer youth employment program which is providing employment right now for over 55,000 young people across the country. Over 40 per cent of the people enrolled in direct job-creation programs under the community development program are under 24 years of age.
We will be having discussions in the next several weeks with a number of groups in the social sector and in the employment sector to talk about how we can establish a specific youth employment strategy and apply our programs in a more targeted and directed way.
We are fully aware of the problem and are trying to direct our programs as best we can. When the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James goes back to his riding this weekend, I hope he will talk to employers in his riding so that they will provide employment for young people in that city.


WOMEN APPLICANTS FOR WELDING COURSE IN MONTREAL
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister should be speaking more frequently with women workers who are facing an extremely high rate of unemployment. With the microtechnology revolution the minister knows they are also being phased out of a whole field of traditional jobs.
I want to ask the minister whether he is aware of a situation in Montreal in which a group of 15 women who are preparing
Oral Questions
themselves for affirmative action in the CNR were refused a welding course by the Canada Employment Centre. Surely the minister knows that during times of high unemployment affirmative action is more important to women workers than ever.
In other parts of Canada women complain that only two or three women-if that many-are allowed to enrol for apprenticeship training, and the minister has cut off pre-apprenticeship training programs. Is it the policy of the minister's department to discriminate against women who want to get into training for non-traditional jobs? Does he oppose affirmative action, which surely should provide equal access to women for trade training for non-traditional jobs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that one of the basic objectives of the new national training program we introduced last January and on which this House has just passed legislation, is to provide for a broadening of access for women to all kinds of new training opportunities.
The situation in Montreal is very clear. Those people were enrolling in a course for which there were already surplus workers. There is no point in having equal opportunity for unemployment. We want to develop training programs for jobs which are available and to put people into training which will lead to direct employment. To that end we have established special incentives in the training program to provide up to 75 per cent incentives to private employers for on-the-job training for women.
I point out, for the interest of the House, that my parliamentary secretary has been meeting for the last two months with that particular group in Montreal in order to find solutions to their problems. Unfortunately, they did not have the good grace to wait for the answers my parliamentary secretary was going to provide. They went to the press first. The way to get co-operation is not by playing to the press like these people did, or, unfortunately, like the hon. member is doing.


FUNDING FOR OIL EXPLORATION IN SENEGAL
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As I am sure the minister is aware, there are a very large number of bankruptcies and business failures in the exploration, servicing and drilling sectors of Canada's oil industry, caused in large part by the National Energy Program and the economic policies of this government which are contributing to the over-all unemployment crisis.
This past month Canada announced it would provide some $16.9 million to Senegal to search for oil. I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he could explain to the industry, and particularly to the unemployed,

July 9, 1982
Oral Questions
why Canadian taxpayers' dollars are being used to look for oil in Senegal while our Canadian industry is going down the drain. Could he explain how this is helping our Canadian industry, and particularly the unemployed?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, first I would like to remind my hon. friend that the people of Canada and the Government of Canada are providing help to Canadian firms to explore and work in Canada to the tune of well over $1 billion a year. As a matter of fact, Parliament just passed a law which allows the government to pay out to the Canadian oil and gas industry this year close to $1 billion in petroleum incentive grants only. That goes to companies doing exploration work all over the country. That is only one of the programs to help the Canadian oil and gas industry.
In addition, as the hon. member knows, as part of our aid program to developing countries we have set up Petro-Can International which will help developing countries which do not have enough money to explore for potential reserves. As we do in all other kinds of areas, this will help them to find resources to make them self-sufficient or less dependent on OPEC oil. That is part of the Canadian aid program and part of our international responsibility.
1 would like to remind my hon. friend that most of that money is going to be used to hire Canadian engineers, geologists and technicians to help those countries meet their future needs. That is part of our international commitment.


MACHINERY AUCTION SALE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, surely it is time that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources started extending some sympathy to Canada's small business sector of the energy exploration and service industry which is going down the drain. Just this week in Lloydminster another gigantic auction sale liquidated the firms of Midway Oilfield Services and Weldex Machine, along with 150 jobs in that community. This sale saw trucks, tractors, cranes and oilfield equipment selling for 30 cents on the dollar.
How long is this minister going to stand idly by and allow this man-made disaster to continue? Or is he prepared to see that once viable energy sector absolutely and totally go down the drain?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend that the Governments of Alberta and Canada in the last three months have set up programs whereby the industry is going to receive over $7 billion of tax breaks and help, over the next five years. There is not one other industry in the country which has been made the beneficiary of such a large tax break like this. Not a single other industry has been put in that comparatively advantageous situation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But you took the money first.


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend should also know that similar problems are being faced by the oil and gas industry in the United States at the present time, in fact by the industry all over the world. My hon. friend need only read an article published in Fortune magazine in the U.S. as recently as three weeks ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are wiping out a once viable industry.


Marc Lalonde: It shows with specific figures and facts that the oil and gas industry in the U.S. is facing similar difficulties. This is the prevailing situation, unfortunately, around the world, and my hon. friend would like Canada to be living in a kind of dream world or on its own. Unfortunately, we are all part of this problem at the present time, but we are trying to resolve this issue. As a matter of fact I had a meeting this morning with the Minister of Energy for Alberta to discuss those very issues-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Throughout the Atlantic provinces urgently needed federal projects, for which funds have already been committed-I am not talking about new funding-are at a standstill. On Prince Edward Island, for example, the construction of the new headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs and of the Charlottetown airport have been unexplainably stalled.
Has the federal government decided to halt such projects across the country to hide the true extent of the federal deficit, which many experts say is not $20 billion, but $25 billion, $26 billion or even more-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, again I want to correct the impression the hon. member is trying to leave, that somehow there are going to be hidden deficit figures. There is no such intention at all. The budget clearly stated the situation as it stands. It is serious enough as it is without the hon. member trying to make it worse. As far as the projects being developed in the Atlantic provinces are concerned, there is a wide variety of them and the contracts for the two that he mentions in Prince Edward Island have already been let.
Just by way of interest, I would also point out to him that my department is prepared to move ahead with a number of substantial new training programs in that province as soon as the provincial government is prepared to sign an agreement. Again, I would ask the hon. member to go back and talk to his colleagues in the Conservative government of that province so
July 9, 1982

that they will sign the agreement and we can get busy working on the marine college there, to start training people of that province for new jobs and occupations.


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENTS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the minister mentioned the marine college in his reply. Yesterday in the House his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, made it very clear that the federal government is going to renege on its firm commitment to share in the cost of a veterinary college in the Atlantic provinces. Would the minister tell the House how many other such projects across the country, for which the federal government has made a firm commitment to municipalities or provinces, it has decided to renege on at the expense of jobs and other economic opportunities for the Atlantic region and the whole of Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member's comments because, as we know full well, the Minister of Agriculture never reneges on a commitment. He is a man of his word. I think you will see that that is fully justified. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that under the new training program we will have a special fund set aside to modernize provincial facilities and buy new equipment in the area of training. The only condition which now must be met is that the provincial government, which will have jurisdiction over those community colleges, must sign a new agreement so that we can put the money in place. I would also point out that the government of his province has not yet signed an agreement, and that is the only thing preventing the program from going ahead in Prince Edward Island.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, every Canadian knows that the unemployment situation will worsen and the economic downturn will continue until the policies of this government are changed to result in lower interest rates. The government keeps telling us that its program to reduce interest rates is based on inflation fighting; with a reduction in inflation, interest rates will come down. That is based on the American model. 1 ask the Acting Prime Minister, in light of the fact that the U.S. inflation rate has come down but their interest rate remains at a very high level, why should anyone in Canada have faith in this government when it says the same thing will happen in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, all the previous answers this morning lead to the realization-and we hope it will sink into the minds of opposition members who have been asking the questions-that the situation which Canada is in at this time is not exclusive to
Oral Questions
Canada. If you look at the United States, in the last year unemployment has gone up from 7.6 per cent to 9.1 per cent, real growth in the GNP has dropped from 2.9 per cent to .9 per cent. The U.S. budget deficit has gone from $29 billion to some say $109 billion, and some say $160 billion. That is what we are saying.
Mr Deans: That is what we are saying!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member who asked the question says we have to bring down inflation. The whole of our policy on this side and the whole of the budget is dedicated to that, but at the same time creating employment for categories of people in a variety of sectors in which it is particularly needed.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker,
I apologize for the inappropriate question 1 have raised. I will repeat it in a different way. We understand that the government is following the U.S. policy to fight inflation, which policy is to keep interest rates high. The assumption was that, when inflation fell, interest rates would fall. That has not happened in the U.S. Since this government's policy is based on that policy, why should Canadians have faith that will happen in Canada when it has not happened in the U.S.?


John Edward Broadbent: Try again, Jean-Luc.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is what we have been saying all along, here, at Versailles, and elsewhere. The Canadian government has denounced that American policy of keeping interest rates too high.


John Edward Broadbent: You have been following it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are not following it. We are taking it into account.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, we are taking it into account because we know that interest rates in the United States have a direct effect on the situation in Canada. It is just witnessing that reality in the United States and trying to cope with it the best way we can.


INDUSTRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as we witness more and more that Grit times are indeed grim times-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 9, 1982
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -I would like to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He perhaps has to share as much as any minister in the total inadequacy of the government's policies. Would the minister indicate why his department has allowed 200,000 jobs to disappear in the manufacturing sector alone; why that sector has experienced profit declines of 51 per cent after the minister's pompous statements that somehow if elected he would get interest rates down in this country or resign?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have been taking action that is aimed at creating very substantial numbers of new jobs now and in the coming months.
Some bon. Members: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We have supported, for example, new development projects at the Mitel corporation, a Canadian-controlled and Canadian-based company to create several thousand new jobs. I announced support for that type of project just a few weeks ago. 1 announced support for a new computer development project at Control Data in Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Just like Consolidated Computers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It will create hundreds of new jobs. I announced support for a new project to create a new inertial guidance system for commercial aircraft.


Mr. Beatty:: Don't forget Consolidated Computers, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This project will create 1,000 new jobs at Litton Industries. If time in the question period permitted, I could give example after example, indicating the definite decisions and actions through programs in my department which have created and are creating tens of thousands of new jobs in this country. But 1 want to say, Madam Speaker, no matter how effective our programs are, we cannot create jobs, nor can we stimulate the marketplace in all the other countries in the world that buy our products. They have a major recession, and it is a factor which-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Kempling:: Your time is up.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to this House a petition signed by 85 residents of the metropolitan area complaining about the existence of a language map prepared under the direction of the Commissioner of Official Languages, wherein to the delight of the imperialist government of the Soviet Union, the language shown on the map for the Baltic states is Russian rather than Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian, as is the case.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition that I am duty bound to present on behalf of some 125 citizens in the city of St. Catharines. They signed this petition to impress upon this government and any succeeding government their objection to any form of direct taxation of home owners by way of imputed rent or otherwise.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



RAILWAY ACT


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-659, to amend the Railway Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide an amendment to Section 86 of the act, which would permit instruments affecting railway rolling stock located, moving or running on or over the lines or tracks of a railway company to be deposited with the Registrar General of Canada, whether or not the rolling stock is owned by or leased by a railway company.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,669, 2,680, 2,852, 4,094, 4,189, 4,191 and 4,192.
July 9, 1982

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Beatty: From March I, 1980 to May 31, 1981, what was the total amount paid by the government for taxis?


David P. Smith: These figures do not include the cost of taxis used by employees on travel status. To obtain that information would entail a detailed examination of every travel claim for the period referred to, the cost of which would be inordinate.
Agriculture Canada	$ 47,910.00
Agricultural Stabilization Board	489.20
Canadian Dairy Commission	5,908.55
Livestock Feed Board of Canada	1,355.65
Communications Canada	24,667.74
Canadian Film Development Corporation Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications	10,400.00
Commission	4,277.89
National Film Board	10,904.68
National Library of Canada	9,536.00
National Museums of Canada	60,086.90
Public Archives of Canada	11,734.00
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council	1,905.00
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada	33,579.27
Economic Development	14,221.00
Employment and Immigration Canada	71,908.60
Energy, Mines and Resources Canada (includes expenditures for Energy Supplies Allocation Board, Petroleum Monitory Agency and Uranium Canada Limited)	88,784.17
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-Research Company (The Research Company is funded by appropriation from Parliament to cover operating costs and capital expenditures)	101,800.00
Atomic Energy Control Board	3,958.07
National Energy Board	4,853.55
Environment Canada	152,607.72
External Affairs Canada	79,467.83
Canadian International Development Agency	65,409.64
Finance Canada	54,931.45
Office of the Auditor General	25,652.56
Department of Insurance	1,366.00
Tariff Board	1,038.35
Fisheries and Oceans	136,216.80
Health and Welfare Canada	154,946.43
Medical Research Council	1,989.90
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada	183,063.00
Industry, Trade and Commerce	219,570.00
Canadian Commercial Corporation	1,542.45
Canadian Patents and Development Limited	102.50
Foreign Investment Review Agency	2,791.00
Metric Commission Canada	7,131.50
Justice Canada	59,144.57
Canadian Human Rights Commission	6,996.58
Canadian Unity Information Office	28,101.30
Law Reform Commission of Canada	642.80
Tax Review Board	8,352.45
Labour Canada	$	18,678.50
Canada Labour Relations Board	14,128.33
National Defence: (April 1, 1980 to May 31, 1981)	12,372.10
(Note: The department does not have the resources necessary to check hundreds of taxi fares over an entire fiscal year to determine the month on which expenses were actually incurred)
Canada Post	124,368.00
Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices	62,917.05
Chief Electoral Officer	1,437.61
Public Works Canada	65,249.00
National Capital Commission	3,762.15
Regional Economic Expansion	115,403.58
Revenue Canada	143,939.06
Science and Technology	11,937.25
National Research Council of Canada	5,682.25
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council	232.60
Science Council of Canada	3,726.10
Secretary of State	151,964.00
Public Service Commission	88,516.88
Solicitor General	19,386.00
Correctional Service of Canada	126,403.72
National Parole Board	3,648.15
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	27,525.00
Supply and Services Canada	188,061.25
Statistics Canada	47,218.00
Transport Canada	422,219.00
Treasury Board Canada	42,493.21
Office of the Comptroller General of Canada	16,740.30
Veterans Affairs Canada	71,489.92
Other departments and agencies have no information on this subject.


Mr. Beatty: From March 1980 to June 1981, what was the cost to the taxpayer for telegrams sent by the government?


David P. Smith: The cost of "telegrams" alone is not readily available as the government does not have a cost accumulator solely for that item of expense. However, we do have a cost accumulator for "messages and data communications services-common carriers including telegraphs, cable and wireless communications."
Agriculture Canada
Agricultural Stabilization Board Canadian Dairy Commission Livestock Feed Board of Canada


[Stage Direction]
Communications Canada
Canadian Film Development Corporation Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission National Film Board National Library of Canada National Museums of Canada Public Archives of Canada
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
80.751.39 383.00
32,874.57
22.952.39 21,500.00
8,829.60
4,880.00
6.907.85
[Stage Direction]
July 9, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada
Economic Development
Employment and Immigration Canada Immigration Appeal Board
Energy, Mines and Resources Canada (includes expenditures for Energy Supplies Allocation Board, Petroleum Monitory Agency and Uranium Canada Limited)
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-Research Company (The Research Company is funded by appropriation from Parliament to cover operating costs and capital expenditures)
Atomic Energy Control Board National Energy Board
Environment Canada
External Affairs Canada
(Other government departments generate 50 per cent of the telegrams transmitted overseas over the facilities of the department)
Canadian International Development Agency
Finance Canada Office of the Auditor General Department of Insurance
Fisheries and Oceans
[Stage Direction]
Supply and Services Canada	$ 134,426.66
Statistics Canada	13,032.00
Transport Canada	7,119,711.00
Treasury Board Canada	20,869.20
Veterans Affairs Canada	34,584.76
Other departments and agencies have no information on this subject.
16,300.00
[Stage Direction]
11,987.52
51,768.61
140,494.97
6,397,552.00
11,044.12
8,631.32
1,557.38
276.00
66,369.87
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Labour under the fitness and amateur sport program at page 32.18, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what services does this entail (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (c) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $39,685 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?
Health and Welfare Canada Medical Research Council
250,860.29 11.00
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada	33,597.00
Industry, Trade and Commerce	233,198.00
Canadian Commercial Corporation	3,690.36
Canadian Patents and Development Limited	506.35
Foreign Investment Review Agency	11,831.00
Metric Commission Canada	4,154.26
Justice Canada	13,207.85
Canadian Human Rights Commission	141.21
Canadian Unity Information Office	89.14
Law Reform Commission of Canada	8.62
Labour Canada	36,959.00
Canada Labour Relations Board	2,597.95
National Defence	188,998.00
Defence Construction (1951) Limited	47,023.68
Canada Post	260,318.00
Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices	10,947.24
Public Works Canada	235,677.00
National Capital Commission	4,176.00
Regional Economic Expansion	97,496.76


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Hospitality Services-1979-80:
(a)	Forms of hospitality provided: receptions, conferences, seminars, awards presentations, serving of non-alcoholic beverages.
(b)	(i) Frederick's-Lake Placid, N.Y., $5,600. Minister's reception re 1980 Winter Olympic Games, Lake Placid, N.Y., 250 guests-Canadian athletes, teams' officials.
(ii) Parliamentary Restaurant-Ottawa, Ontario, $6,275. Minister's reception for Olympic athletes-450 guests.
(c)	Treasury Board Hospitality Policy and guidelines used.
(d)	These events took place during the tenure of a previous government and it is not considered to be proper constitutional practice for one government to seek or provide such detailed data about the obviously well intentioned and well done operations of its predecessor.
Revenue Canada	397,753.00
Science and Technology	8,320.51
National Research Council of Canada	39,277.78
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council	2,237.28
Science Council of Canada	500.53
Secretary of State	29,352.00
Public Service Commission	63,426.00


Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to the answer to question No. 2,760 which listed hotels and restaurants where bills were paid by the government on behalf of Mr. Don Marriott, director of restaurant and catering at the National Arts Centre, what amount was paid for each hotel and restaurant?
Solicitor General	3,583.00
Correctional Service of Canada	5,019.33
National Parole Board	499.33
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	243,264.00
2. In the case of each restaurant where the name was "not specified", what amount was paid and what are all the reasons the government would pay money to a public servant for food and beverage at an establishment that was not documented by a bill from the establishment?
July 9, 1982


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: Referring to our reply to question No. 2,760, the amounts paid in respect to hotel and restaurant charges incurred by the director of restaurants and catering of the National Arts Centre are as follows:
Place	Hotel	Amount	Restaurant	AmountToronto	Royal York	$ 62.83	not specified	$ -Stratford	not applicable	-	Church Rest.	54.00Toronto	Hilton	49.00	not specified	-Stratford	not applicable	-	Church Rest.	55.00New York	St. Moritz	248.00	Charlies	58.65The Plaza	34.11Toronto	not applicable	-	Proud Popover	11.50Montreal	Meridien	47.62	not specified	-Toronto	Royal York	46.15	not specified	-Stratford	not applicable	-	Mother's	18.72Toronto	Royal York	46.15	Meyers	16.50Trolley	82.33Guelph	Guelph University	N/C	not specified	-Toronto	Royal York	138.00	London Fishery	46.59Montreal	not applicable	-	not specified	-Chicago	Blackstone	124.48	not specified	-Milwaukee	Pfister	59.51	not specified	-Toronto	Royal York	166.73	Thinstons	18.97Whalers	15.37Markangelos	35.12Chives	65.00Stratford	not applicable	-	Old English Inn	26.00New Hamburg	not applicable	-	Waterlot	14.45Toronto	Royal York	108.38	Coffee House	4.85Abundance	7.33La Folie	40.31Frankfurt	Holiday Inn	125.16	Plaza	nilMontreal	Windsor	27.00	Dunn's	12.85Montreal	Bonaventure	53.65	not specified	-Toronto	Park Plaza	52.09	Copenhagen	75.02Toronto	Park Plaza	113.60	Copenhagen	60.00Scaramouche	54.51Stratford	not applicable	-	Church	64.20Toronto	Royal York	163.23	Simpsons	20.42Toronto	Park Plaza	116.49	not specified	-
2. The names of certain restaurants were not specified when Mr. Marriott was claiming only a per diem allowance and under this condition it is considered that restaurants chosen are a matter of personal choice. However, it is the policy of the National Arts Centre to require the names of restaurants and supporting vouchers when duty entertainment is claimed as expense.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of Air 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?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: (a) to (e) The only loans made to Air Canada personnel were housing assistance loans made on the basis of company initiated relocation of staff. This is part of the wage and compensation program and as such is regarded as proprietary information.
Order Paper Questions CMHC-LOANS TO EMPLOYEES


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 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?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) As an adjunct to its transfer policy, CMHC makes financial assistance available for housing purposes to employees on relocation. Financial assistance is provided on request, and within set guidelines, in the form of bridge financing and registered second mortgages. Interest is charged at the prevailing market rate on the date of loan approval.
CMHC transfers an average of 145 employees per year. In 1980, 75 transferred employees availed themselves of the financial assistancce described above, while 64 did so in 1981. All the bridge financing loans have been repaid. There are 43 second mortgages under repayment. The amortization periods vary from 5 to 25 years and the rates of interest range from 10 per cent to 20.5 per cent.
Other specific information requested is considered of a personal nature.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 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?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Yes, loans have been made to CBC employees since March 1980. (a), (b), (c), (d) It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration as the names of individual staff members and the corporation's dealings with them. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530 answered November 6, 1975.
(e)	The CBC's policies in this regard, limit the granting of loans to employees to two circumstances:
(i)	Where the corporation requires an employee to relocate to an area where the cost of housing of comparable standard is significantly higher, assistance in meeting this additional cost may be provided in the form of an interest free loan for a limited period of time. These loans are limited to $25,000 and five years.
(ii)	Where the corporation requires an employee to relocate to a foreign posting, assistance may be provided in the form of loans, to meet obligations which must be retired before leaving Canada or obligations relating to cost factors peculiar to the

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
foreign country. These loans, which are not interest free, must be repaid within three years.


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


Mr. Siddon:: Madam Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary when we might expect an answer to question No. 4,053 which 1 entered on the Order Paper on February 23, 1982? This question deals with the shipment of uranium hexafluoride through the Soviet Union for enrichment to other destination countries. I would like to have an accounting of where the isotopes U235 and U238 ultimately end up and how much residue is retained by the Soviet Union. This is a very urgent and pressing question. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us how soon we might expect an answer?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that today. Elowever, I will be glad to look into the matter on behalf of the hon. member.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I have a query for the parliamentary secretary with respect to question No. 3,488 which I placed on the Order Paper on November 26, 1981, to which I have not yet had a response.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will look into that matter as well.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation\

Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I open the debate on Bill C-124, which concerns the establishment of a compensation restraint program in the federal public service.
Canada is in the middle of an acute recession. One quarter of our production capacity remains idle. There has been an alarming drop in commercial investment and profits. The demand for goods has diminished, both on the domestic market and on our foreign markets. One million two hundred and fifty thousand Canadians are unemployed. Industry and
consumers are suffering as a result of high interest rates which are a by-product of inflation. We must improve our poor performance on the production side. Our trade surplus is the only ray of hope in an economic situation that is otherwise somber and disappointing.
More to the point, we run the risk of seriously jeopardizing our long-term competitive position if we are unable to bring our costs under control. Our inflation performance is worse than that of our key trading partners. At present, Canada's consumer price index is increasing at a rate of more than 11 per cent as compared with one year ago. This is four to five percentage points higher than in the United States and about 6 per cent higher than increases in Germany and Japan. Wage settlements in Canada were in excess of 12 per cent in the first quarter of this year. Our wage settlements are, therefore, running about five percentage points higher than those of our major trading partner, the United States.
In its recently released study, which hon. members undoubtedly saw a few days ago, the OECD identified Canada as having the poorest record among the seven largest member countries in moderating its level of wage increases. To date Canadians by and large have failed to align their wage adjustments to the realities of both the Canadian and world economies. Wage rate settlements are so high as to be in fundamental conflict with reducing inflation, bringing down interest rates and creating employment.
If Canada's economic vitality was less dependent upon its ability to sell goods abroad or upon competition with foreign goods here, it would be much less important how our costs compared with those of our trading competitors. We simply cannot expect to compete once the world recession abates unless we align the increases in our costs of production and our rate of inflation with those of other western trading nations.

During the last few weeks before the last budget was brought down, many informed and concerned Canadians in all professions repeatedly asked the federal government to initiate a wage adjustment standard that would be compatible with the country's present economic capacity and its future well-being. All realized that it was imperative for the federal government to accentuate the anti-inflationary impact of its economic policies by taking a more determined stand on wage rates. The federal public sector compensation restraint program alone cannot resolve all the economic problems Canadians are wrestling with today. It should be seen as a serious and striking example that all Canadians, employers and employees, individually and collectively, must follow if they are the least bit concerned with maintaining their competitive position abroad and their standard of living at home.
July 9, 1982

Wage expectations of Canadian workers can no longer exceed national production without increasing both inflation and unemployment. If the vast majority of Canadians do not agree to wage increases below the expectations they seem to have, inflation will not be reduced either substantially or permanently.

In the federal public service the collective bargaining system during its relatively short 15-year history has worked well. Those who have played a part in operating that system deserve to be commended for the responsible way in which they have conducted their affairs. But in the economic times we have been experiencing and are likely to continue to experience for some time, we simply have to do better. The economy can no longer afford wage increases that match the rate of inflation because they ensure the continuation of inflation at that rate or even higher.
I have heard the suggestion from some commentators and union leaders that this bill singles out the public service for harsh treatment. I reject that charge. Across the country in recent months almost every large employer in the private sector has been forced to take action to curtail wage costs. Employees have been laid off at every level up to top management. Pay increases have been deferred, holidays cut, promotions delayed and hours of work extended. These cuts have not been reflected in figures which purport to compare public and private pay levels. Indeed, public employees have been largely exempted from such restraints or adverse changes in their own working conditions. To this extent they represent a privileged community within the country.
What we are saying in our approach to wage restraint is that leadership, like charity, begins at home. We are not asking others to do what we are not prepared to do ourselves. The restraints also apply to Members of Parliament, to senators, to members of the judiciary, to Crown corporations, to the RCMP and to the Armed Forces. Other than for Members of Parliament, ministers and senators, there will be no reduction in wages or salaries being paid as of June 28, 1982.
The program will apply to employees for a duration of two years from their date of entry into the program, which will be determined by the expiry dates of their current compensation plans or the next scheduled wage rate increase in current compensation plans. The maximum permissible increase in wage rates will be 6 per cent in the first year of application and 5 per cent in the second year. These are not unreasonable increases. The advice tendered to the government from innumerable and varied sources ranges from doing nothing, allowing the existing systems to continue to apply, to freezing or to even rolling back wages already being paid. The program's increases at 6 per cent and 5 per cent are very much in keeping with the inclination of Canadians to seek a moderate approach.
Collective agreements and compensation plans will be extended and continue in force in the two-year period during which the program will apply to employees. In consequence, all compensation conditions and many terms and conditions of
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
employment will remain unchanged for the duration of the program.
The bill provides that the Treasury Board may authorize changes to the terms and conditions of compensation plans other than wage rates, but only in cases where a plan has expired and has not been renewed as of last June 28. This provision will allow the terms and conditions of such expired plans to be brought up to current standards; this provision will not allow terms and conditions to be rolled back. Wage rate increases in such plans will be limited to no more than 9 per cent for the one-year period from the expiry date. Tentative agreements signed by the parties and subsequently implemented without any change will be honoured as part of these transitional arrangements. In such cases, entry into the program will be on the day following the termination date of the compensation plan or on the effective date of the second wage rate increase provided for in the agreement or the plan.

To be successful, a compensation restraint program must be administered as simply as possible and applied across the board; it should contain only a minimum of exemptions or exceptions, require no new administrative organization or hardly any, and affect as little as possible compensation management practices and pay relationships. The proposed program meets all these requirements. In fact, rather than establishing a new governmental organization, the administration of the compensation restraint program in the federal public service will be the responsibility of the Treasury Board, supported in the performance of this duty by its secretariat. The uniform wage rate increases provided under the program will help avoid the complications that would arise from the application of progressive rate increases at various income levels. The applicaton of a uniform rate increase to all compensation plans provides that, as far as possible, present pay scales are maintained. It prevents complex problems arising from the compression and transposition of wages and finally, will provide for an orderly resumption of the collective bargaining process at the end of the program. Wage rates at the bottom of the pay scale in the federal public service compare favourably with those in the private sector. However, there are serious inequities, compared with the private sector, starting at the second management level in the public service. In fact, instead of creating injustice, a uniform rate of increase will prevent existing inequities from getting worse.
It is not the intention of the government to use the wage restraint program to alter the normal structure of pay relationships within the public service, a structure that has been developed so assiduously through the collective bargaining process. Any change in that structure is the proper function of the tax system.
Employees who are at less than job rates will continue to receive increments; those who are subject to performance pay

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
plans will continue to receive awards based upon the results of performance appraisals. As a result, employees will continue to progress in their wage or salary ranges as they gain experience and improve performance. This is an important point upon which there is already some misunderstanding and I would remind all hon. members that adjustments are possible in accordance with existing compensation plans. These plans, similar to those which operate in other areas of our economy, including the private sector, will not be changed nor should they be by this particular bill.
Some questions have been raised concerning the propriety of the government continuing to approve or negotiate wage increases for its employees in the days and weeks immediately prior to June 28. Let me set the record straight once again. Hon. members will appreciate that in a collective bargaining regime, once a notice to bargain has been given the parties are obliged to bargain in good faith with a view to concluding a collective agreement. Would it have been good faith on the part of the government to refuse to bargain with its employees or to have deliberately stalled negotiations on the strength of the imminent introduction of the proposed legislation? In my view, the answer is a definite and unequivocable no. Increases were negotiated for the groups concerned on the basis of what was fair and equitable relative to the private sector. As far as those employees are concerned, where the government unilaterally determines the terms of employment, for the groups which we heard of in the House, we saw no reason at all to want to treat them in a manner substantially different from those who are subject to collective bargaining. Their salary reviews were carried out according to the normal schedules. Groups such as Justice department lawyers received the same level of salary increase as those lawyers who are members of the bargaining unit and work in other departments and are not excluded. The unionized lawyers negotiated an 11 per cent increase in April of this year. In short, the government was anxious to treat both their unionized and non-unionized lawyers in a fair and consistent manner.
I should point out, however, that the government is asking the senior executives in the public service to make an additional sacrifice in that the recommendations of the select group of business leaders who advise the government on compensation levels for public service executives will not be approved. The advisory group, as members will recall, recommended a 9.5 per cent increase effective April 1, 1982. Instead, the review date has been brought forward to July 1, 1982, and deputy ministers and other senior executives will have their pay scales adjusted by 6 per cent as of that date. In other words, the 1981 salaries of the most senior public servants will have remained in place for 15 months.
One point I wish to emphasize is that all these groups, those determined unilaterally and those determined by the collective bargaining process prior to the implementation of this program, come under the program at 6 per cent and 5 per cent like everyone else in accordance with the terms of this particular provision of the law.
It is a measure of the serious economic problems facing the country that a proposal to restrain the rate of growth in wage and salary increases in the public sector is necessary. It is necessary because the devastation that inflation brings and has brought must be stopped. This can be done only if all of us, all employed Canadians, make a concerted effort, and indeed a sacrifice, to break the spiralling cost increases in which wages play so important a part. The program that the government has introduced requires a modest sacrifice from public service employees in order to provide benefits and greater opportunities to those Canadians who have been especially hard hit by the ravages of inflation.
The phenomenon of inflation and its impact on countries and individuals today throughout the entire industrialized world is there for all to see. No one is immune from it. Much as a particularly virulent virus, it continues to spread with increasing intensity to claim its victims. Canada cannot contract out of the world in which we rank so high as a trading nation. We cannot permit our economic future to be jeopardized by cost and productivity performance which simply prices us out of markets. If this is allowed to happen, our foreign trade surpluses will disappear, our standard of living will drop dramatically and we will be left behind when our trading partners commence the next surge of world economic growth.


Mr. Domm:: It has already happened.


Donald James Johnston: Inflation is the enemy. It feeds on our human desires to protect ourselves and it grows on our expectations that we, as individuals and groups, can somehow have more than we earn. We cannot.

The mechanisms we have developed in this country to distribute wealth and revenue, establish the relative value of work and define conditions of employment are numerous and complex. They have been extremely helpful and will continue to be, in my view.
Canadians often speak in disparaging terms about federal public servants and are not always capable of understanding or appreciating their work. These public servants, however, are doing their utmost to serve their fellow citizens. Furthermore, relations between the government and its employees and their representatives are good. We must, therefore, go on working together if we want our country to come through this very difficult period, for the greater benefit of all concerned.

Public servants are no more responsible for inflation than any other group of Canadians.


Mr. Rose:: Or any other group of workers.


Donald James Johnston: But the whole purpose of the program is much more than simply to restrain wage increases. It signals the start of a national crusade-une croisade nationale- against the crippling effects of inflation, high interest rates and unemployment.
July 9, 1982


Mark Willson Rose: Read the history of the Crusades.


Donald James Johnston: If other sectors follow our leadership and we are successful in this crusade, then everyone will gain from the reduction of inflation that will inevitably ensue. We are challenging the people of Canada to adopt our 6 per cent and 5 per cent target. These are targets that are achievable and which will set our economy back on the track to renewed growth and prosperity. That challenge which I have underlined begins with this bill.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin the debate by saying that I believe it is essential to the recovery of this country that we increase its productivity, lessen the demands of its citizens and that the responsibility to accomplish this falls on all Canadians. If there is the crisis of which the minister spoke during his speech, I hope that he will recognize today, as we begin what he calls a national crusade, where the responsibility lies for a great deal of it.
I believe that the problem during the last little while in Canada is that somehow governments which provide leadership have forgotten the biblical injunction that in good years one should store up against the bad years. What has happened, as one finds today as one looks over the devastation which has occurred in the country, is that rather than storing up for the bad years, we have unwisely utilized the tremendous resources, promise and potential that Sir Wilfrid Laurier said was Canada's in the twentieth century. One cannot blame Americans for that and one cannot blame Canadians for that. One does not blame old age pensioners or public servants for that. If governments are prepared to accept the credit when programs and policies work well, then they must equally accept the responsibility when it all collapses. What the minister says is right. The whole thing is close to falling apart. It may apply to the minister, but he is right as it applies to the economy.
As we begin this debate, it is well for every one of us to put it in the appropriate context. It does not matter where we sit in the House of Commons. I would like to put it in this context, because what I am about to say to the House is the bottom line, the balance sheet of years and years of neglect, of virtual dereliction of duty by successive ministers of finance, beginning with the great white hope who practises law on Bay Street and ending with the great white loss who sits in the House of Commons as Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) today.
This is the balance sheet of their stewardship as the Government of Canada. Their agency, Statistics Canada, used the words "The economy is in a tailspin". The gross national product, it told us, fell by 2 per cent in the first quarter, the third consecutive quarter of negative growth in Canada and the largest quarterly decline in 28 years in Canada.
Corporations employ people in Canada. Corporate profits in the first quarter of 1982 were only 41 per cent of the level recorded in the same period in 1981. Manufacturing output in the first quarter of 1982 was only 70 per cent of capacity, the
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
lowest level of capacity utilization since records were first kept in 1961. The transportation industry, which has been the arteries, the lifeblood and the heart of the industrialization and development of the country heretofore, is only operating at 51 per cent of capacity. The Conference Board of Canada says that consumer confidence is at the lowest level in 20 years.
In the first five months of 1982 alone, 4,429 business declared bankruptcy in Canada, up 36 per cent from the same period in 1981 and up 55 per cent from the same period in 1980. When did we ever hear of farm bankruptcies before? They are up by 61 per cent from last year's level and up 111 per cent from 1980. Today, there is 10.9 per cent unemployment in Canada. That statistic, 10 per cent, does not mean much any more, but one must consider it in human terms. There are 1,300,000 Canadians who want to work but cannot find work. Therefore, many dreams have been shattered.
It has been the policy of this government to keep interest rates high, to depress the economy and, boy, has it been successful in doing that! Interest rates have started to climb again as the government attempts to support the dollar. The chartered bank rate is now 18.25 per cent. At least, it was on the eve of the budget. That compares to the rate of 16.5 per cent in the Unites States. At the time of the 1980 election when all those promises for success were made, the Canadian chartered bank rate was 14.75 per cent. It was at that time that then finance critic of the then opposition, who is now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), said that if it did not go down, he would resign. Well, the bank rates went up, but, unfortunately for Canada, that minister did not go down. Ten years ago the bank rate was 6 per cent. I thought I should say that, because that is the testament of failure. We must remember that this debate is being carried out in the context of the budget of November 12, 1981, which was condemned by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), condemned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), and condemned by ten colleagues, private members of the Liberal Party, as one of the worst disasters in history, and which was abandoned by the Minister of Finance. That is the situation in which we find ourselves.
In the context of the budget of June 28, 1982 I do not know of any sector of the Canadian economy which has taken the terms and conditions of the budget of 1982 and said: "That will put the wheels on the vehicle for this national crusade." There has been none. When businessmen were in Ottawa yesterday and met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), they were there to support the country. I am one of those Members of Parliament who hopes that the consultation with the labour leaders of Canada will be successful. The meeting is probably being held right now, or if it is over, it was held this morning. I say to the minister that I am one of those who hopes that the consultation is successful because I think this country is sick and tired of non-productive confrontation. There is a duty on the government-not just today, it has been there for years-to have this kind of consultation. The minister

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
knows full well that that consultation has not taken place. The result of it is that he must begin, as he puts it, a national crusade.
I want the crusade the minister talks about to succeed. However, I tell him there is some doubt in the country about the efficacy, the strength, ability and credibility of some of the crusaders opposite. The Sir Galahad of 1968 in the shining armour on the white charger is now the leader of a decrepit gang and a degenerated government that is devoid of imagination. They have proven it. Sir Galahad's armour is rusting. The horse's head is bowed. It is old and weak. The sword is broken.
I worry about the leadership of this crusade. I have reason to because I sit every day in this House of Commons and I look at the crusaders. One of the problems in Canada is that we suffer from an economic crisis and a crisis in leadership. It is the crisis that has brought us here. For the sake of this country, I hope and pray that that decrepit gang will take some part in sharing with others the opportunity of bringing this country back to the promise that was made about it by a former Liberal Prime Minister who distinguished himself a long time ago.
I say to the government that theirs is a record of destruction. What has happened to Canada is this. This great country of promise has had a government that is not worthy of the country. The country is worth more than the worth of this government. That is apparent wherever one goes.
Yesterday I received calls from a senior executive, a person working in the public service and a retired public servant. As well, I spoke to a housewife in my office. I met a relatively young person, of voting age, on the steps of the House of Commons as I was coming in. The question on the lips of all these people was: "When are you going to get rid of them?" Would that question be asked if there was not the crisis of which I speak? I am convinced that the government is finished. Its mandate has run out. It makes promises but does not deliver. I do not want the potential of this country to run out. I have to say to those people that I regret our system. I have lived in it for ten years. I regret that it requires us to put up with a government of this nature, but that is the system.
I say to the government that there are millions and millions of Canadians asking the same question. They are saying: "Watch out, members of the government, we are millions strong and we won't forget." Some of them are in the public service of Canada. In the minister's speeches in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, he made veiled threats about the public service and the fact that they would have to cut back. He spoke as if public servants were some kind of second-class citizens who somehow did not understand the necessity to be, along with other Canadians, part of a national recovery program.
Some of the rhetoric in this country has done a great disservice to the public service of Canada. I have represented public servants for ten years. They are as much concerned about this country and this government as anyone else. They have more reason to know the shortcomings of this government
because they have worked for it for over 14 years. They have seen the promise dissipate.
It is not because there is a problem with the public service that they are being asked to share in what the minister calls the great crusade and what I hope will be a national recovery program. That is not the problem. They are prepared to share in that. Their concern is that they be joined by others in the crusade. Who are those others? There are the members of the House of Commons, the senators and judges who are joined in that crusade by this bill. However, they want to see others join in the crusade. Yesterday a blue ribbon committee met with the Prime Minister. Public servants want to be assured that the members of that committee join them and that they too, in terms of salary increases, endure the same levels. They want to be sure of that.
Public servants want to be assured that there is some responsibility, and I am sure there is, in the labour movement of Canada to share with the public sector. They put some responsibility on the government. They have noted that while their salaries are being fixed by this bill, the goods and services being delivered by federally-controlled monopolies, agencies and boards are not so confined. Those services are only to be monitored. They have heard the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) waffle a bit on how tough that monitoring will be. The public servant notices this when he goes to pay his telephone bill, gas bill or for some kind of service which is under federal responsibility. When he notices that kind of thing and he says: "They are treating me just a shade differently than others even within their own jurisdiction", he is going to demand performance on that promise. If that performance does not come through, then he or she is going to wonder down the road what point there was in being on the cutting edge or the leading edge of the national crusade. He is going to ask all of those questions and for answers.
The public service of Canada knows that there is very little difference between living in a house that is overmortgaged and living in a country that is overmortgaged. Canada is mortgaged to the hilt-$20 billion of mortgage, higher per capita than the United States. The public service knows, like everyone else, that it has been the stupidity of the government that has got it there. But he or she is still a citizen of the country. They are going to take part not only in getting the country out of that mess, if that is possible; they are going to take their part, too, in getting that government off the backs of the country. That is something we are looking forward to, Mr. Speaker.
The minister dealt with the bill in some detail. I do not propose to go into that kind of detail. The government is prepared to have the working man and woman in the public service lay their cards on the table. I believe the time has come when everyone had better lay their cards on the table. The public knows what you receive as a salary, Mr. Speaker, as they should; it is a public salary. They know what the ministers
July 9, 1982

receive, they know what Members of Parliament receive, what judges receive. But a strange thing about this government is that its order in council appointments and the salaries that are paid to order in council appointments are kept secret. I think the time has come for us all to lay the cards on the table.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I believe that part of this bill should be a requirement that those order in council payments, wherever they are made, wherever they come from and whatever job the people concerned do, that are paid out of the public purse of Canada should become public.
If my friend from the New Democratic Party asks a question, I would tell him that if he was in the House from time to time he would read the Order Paper. He would see a bill in my name which, if it were adopted by the government, would do exactly the same thing. But it is time that they came clean, that they disclosed, so that we know who the players are and what the players are paid.
Take, for instance, the post office, that corporation that is supposed to revolutionize delivery in the postal service in Canada. If it does not, the head of that corporation is called to account for it. It may be a measure of his failure, of the people's judgment, to find out how much he is paid. The same thing applies to the new chairman of the CNR. He used to be a member of this House. They all receive a public salary. I do not know how I as a member of the House of Commons or the Canadian public can judge their performance if we do not know what those salaries are.
I have tried honestly to find some justification in my mind and in my heart for the failure to disclose, but all of the reasons that I have had are facile. The big reason is that maybe they would not want to come to work for the public if the public knew. I do not believe that, because 1 asked Michael Warren in a committee one time if he would tell his salary and he said, "Of course I would; I have no personal objection to that, but it is government policy that that not be done." Well, 1 think it is just about time that we reversed that policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Let us lay the cards on the table. The government is asking public servants to lay a portion of their increases on the table; lay the cards on the table.
With respect to other matters, I think there has to be some real political leadership. I was disturbed the other day when 1 found out that some people within the broad public sector have received in this year salary increases of 21 per cent. Here is what they are. I am quoting from a clipping:
As Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was telling the Commons how the government was leading the way in wage controls, a Tory MP was trying to find why ministerial aides got a 21 per cent raise this year. June 17, Treasury Board President Don Johnston gave the aides a 10 per cent raise-bringing their total raise so far this year to 21 per cent. The budget, brought down June 28, limited civil service raises to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Now, leadership is a good thing. Let that leadership begin at the anterooms of the ministers. Get them back to the status quo ante. Roll it back. Be direct, be honest, treat everyone the same, as my friend from Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) says. That is the thesis of the minister's discussion, his little homily today: let us treat everyone the same. It might be a good idea. It might show leadership and it might help bear the pain a little bit that goes with a cutback if that were done. The minister smiles. He knows he should do this, and I hope over the weekend he will reconsider what they have done with respect to these appointments.
There is another matter which I would like the government to consider, in this sense of fairness, as we begin this crusade together. I see the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) is sitting in the House. He is an upright man, a physician of good standing. Let him go, as a physician, as a friend, as a colleague, to the minister and ask him to examine what was done, to see if it is not better that there be that change in attitude-that leadership does start at the top, that leadership does start at ministers' offices. It would be helpful. I think it would lead to some credibility with respect to this national program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the minister that all the public service is prepared to go with it, if they see it works, and they are prepared to go with it in the hope that it will work. Some of them said to me that they want to do their part, and I honestly believe that. Let nobody mistake the situation. Controls of any kind are unfair; they break unfairly and they affect people unevenly. Someone called them rough justice, and that is rough justice.
The minister will have received, I know, a letter from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, dated July 7, 1982, dealing with the agriculture group. They set forth their concern about Bill C-124, but they do talk about the unique circumstances of the negotiation.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that it is now one o'clock. I would like to take up the matter at this point after the recess.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had the floor.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, without reflection on your colleagues in the chair, let me say I am very pleased you are in the chair for this debate because we share in common many of the problems we are discussing. 1 do not

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
think it is inappropriate for me to say that because under our system an incumbent of the chair, whether the Speaker or not, is also a member of the House of Commons.
I am sorry the minister is not here. There might be some legitimate reason for his not being here. I am not reflecting on his absence; his parliamentary secretary is here, and I am pleased to note that.
At one o'clock I was expressing some grave concerns- concerns which have been expressed to me-about the unevenness and the bumpiness of any kind of control program. We had an anti-inflation program during the period 1975-76, and at that time there was a great deal of what might be called rough-justice under that program. Well, there is rough justice here, if I can use that phrase. I think 6 per cent and 5 per cent limits have to be a concern to anyone who is interested in equity.
I see the minister is here now. I welcome him back. Depending on one's income in the public service there is a certain roughness involved in the 6 per cent and 5 per cent guidelines.
The interpretations which will be put on some of the provisions of the bill will create problems as well. At one o'clock I was referring to a copy of a letter I received from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada over the signature of its president, Mr. Jack Donegani, dated July 7, 1982 and directed to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). The letter dealt with the problem of an agricultural group within the public service of Canada comprising some 265 employees.
This is the first example which has come to my attention, Mr. Speaker. I am satisfied that there will be many examples which come to our attention during the next two or three years in which this program is in place, because to some it is by its terms going to apply a lot longer than just two years. As we reach the straggered end of the program, the examples will become even more apparent and it is my prediction that if there is some regret among members of the House that we ever had to venture into this program because of the roughness of its application, the regret will be multiplied towards the end of the program.
In any event, this is what Mr. Donegani wrote to the President of the Treasury Board about this memorandum of agreement for 265 employees:
This memorandum of agreement was signed at approximately 11 a.m. on June 28, 1982-
As an aside, I will call it a date which will live in infamy. It goes on:
-and thereby in accordance with the proposed section 4(2) of Bill C-124 which states in part " ... a compensation plan shall be deemed to be in effect on June 28, 1982 if parties to the plan have, prior to that date, agreed in writing to establish the plan to have effect on the expiration of the previous compensation plan ... ", the Agriculture Group Memorandum of Agreement will not be honoured.
That is the position and the allegation set out in the letter. It continues:
The Agriculture Group collective agreement expiring July 6, 1982 will be extended without change, save for the wage rate increases provided in Section 9 of the Bill.
It goes on, and this is the important paragraph:
The unique circumstances surrounding the negotiations for the Agriculture Group make the application of Section 4(2) most distressing. The parties met on Friday, June 25, and agreed in principle on many issues. The historical, close relationship with the Biological Sciences Group, which was scheduled to bargain on Saturday, June 26, prompted a pause in the Agriculture negotiations. With the settlement of the Biological Sciences Agreement on June 26, the Institute presented a position for settlement of the Agriculture Agreement at the first opportunity-
That happened to be Monday, June 28, budget day. It continues:
The Treasury Board accepted the settlement which now appears in jeopardy.
That seems to be unfair. If the minister went out of his way to say something should apply to lawyers in the Department of Justice, I think it should apply to the people in the Department of Agriculture covered by this agreement. I raise this as an indication of this rough justice which is going to prevail. The minister is going to have to look into this kind of thing, and I hope he will do so.
There was a very sober and serious letter sent to the President of the Treasury Board on July 5, 1982, from Mr. W. J. Robertson, President of the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association. They have been much in the news recently. In fact, they have been the subject of a Supreme Court case which I believe has changed the balance in collective bargaining in the public service of Canada quite dramatically, at least for those who think collective bargaining relates only to strikes. It has affected the rights of the government quite dramatically in terms of the provision of services which are important for safety and security, so much so that I now wonder about Clause 6 and Clause 7 of this particular bill, and I am going to deal with them a little later. The writer of the letter pointed to the inequity which can develop in a control situation; said this:
What more pointed dichotomy of the effect of selective controls could be illustrative than one of the examples we face here in Ottawa. The government is allowing oil companies (including PetroCan) in Ontario to sell gasoline in the Ottawa area at six cents per litre more than anywhere else in the province, despite the fact that the only motive of the operators is to reap windfall profits. This one example perfectly illustrates the advantage industry will be able to take of a controlled public service and consumer.
That statement is true and illustrates how important it is that the monitoring of those goods and services to be delivered under the aegis of the federal government must be strict indeed. Nothing will strike at the heart of the good faith- reluctant, angry, but good faith-which will be exhibited, I believe, by the vast majority of public servants to its elements, at least as they affect compensation, than to see those same public servants on the cutting edge of controls, on the cutting edge of the crusade led by the jaded crusaders I talked about earlier, and then find no other crusaders in business, labour, or elsewhere behind them. The government will have to prove that when it said monitoring, it did not mean a wave of the hand at increases. I do not think the case could have been put any more eloquently than it was last night by the hon. member
July 9, 1982

for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) when he talked about regulated industries and suppliers of goods and services. I hope the government will not forget that.
There is one other area I would like to deal with, Mr. Speaker, in terms of a possible inequity with which the government must cope. It is interesting, is it not, that the government has decided to monitor the production and cost of goods and services over which it has some jurisdiction. It has decided to cap the compensation of its public servants, but when it comes to the professional consultants it hires, there is not a word in the budget. Not a word. I think there is a demonstrated and patent unfairness in that, and I believe the bill is deficient to the degree it does not apply to consultants' fees. With respect to public relations consultants, ministers can make any deal they want, and we know they make deals. When I was in government I used to make deals with consultants.
Since the government is entering into this regime, if it is good for the public service, then it should be good for the consultants and those who work on behalf of the government under contract. What happens in the public service, unfortunately, is that a great deal of the work they could do is contracted out, and there is little opportunity for public servants to test themselves. The regime should apply to contracted professionals such as lawyers, accountants, management and advertising consultants, reporters, architects and others who perform work on behalf of the federal government. It is patently unfair to deal with the public service one way, and deal another way with those people who supplant or work beside the public servants. I think that is an inequity which the government must look into and deal with.
[DOT] (M20)
The government has a duty as well to look at all of its programs, those expensive programs which are discretionary. The government has a duty to look at the decentralization program. You have had some interest, I understand, Mr. Speaker, in the decentralization program. Some difference of opinion seems to have developed with respect to the decentralization program. The minister blushes. If I were the architect of such a program I would blush too.
I am looking at a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen for July 8, 1982. It is a story written by Citizen staff writer Peter Maser. I will read part of it because it is most illustrative:
The federal government will not carry through with plans to move 750 jobs in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to Sherbrooke, Que. Or will it?
Ottawa MP Lloyd Francis-
I am quoting from the article, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order and not a point of debate. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is deliberately involving the Speaker in this debate, which he knows is not proper according to the rules of the House. He must know that the Speaker does not have a chance to answer in a debate; therefore, the hon. member should not drag the occupant of the chair into the debate.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who is an experienced member of the House and an old personal friend, I am sure will use discretion in the circumstances.


Walter David Baker: I have always tried to do that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to assure the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) that I will. I am not angry or upset at all with the intervention of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. 1 think we should be reminded that the occupant of the Chair at all times is deserving of special respect in the House of Commons.
I shall continue now with the article as follows:
Ottawa MP Lloyd Francis took many of his Liberal colleagues by surprise Wednesday by announcing that the $140 million move was dead, a victim of tough economic times and government restraint.
The article then goes on to say that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) did not agree, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) had said no decision had been taken, and that even a recommendation on the move would not be going to cabinet for another five or six weeks.
At a period of time when we are asking the public service for restraint, I think it is incumbent upon every member of this House of Commons to ask for a review of that kind of program, which is really an excuse for regional development. I think it is incumbent on every member of this House of Commons to ask what is the cost in loss of efficiency, the length of time in the delivery of service and in the operation and administration of the public service of Canada. That is the question I want to put. I am sure that no member of the House, whether an incumbent of the Chair or otherwise, would not agree that at a time of restraint a program like that should be examined. That is what I meant when I said that it is within the context of a restraint bill-and that is the purpose of it- that some programs be looked at. Decentralization is one of them.
We do not have a bucketful of money in Canada. I think it is important the matter was raised and that a definitive statement be made by the President of the Treasury Board. When he asks for restraint and acceptance of restraint by the public service of Canada, he should say: "I have gone to all members of the House who would be potential beneficiaries of these moves in the decentralization program and I have told them that it is necessary, because it is expensive and because we do not have the money, that I ask the same of you and that all of those moves be cancelled".
Perhaps a move like that could be looked at some day in a better time, but cancelled now. 1 think that would add to the element of fairness that the government must have toward its employees and within the government to the private sector, because the thrust of the program that was outlined by the President of the Treasury Board was this: "We are restraining ourselves; we want you to restrain yourselves."

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
That is the leadership that has to be shown and I expect an announcement to that effect from the President of the Treasury Board next week. When he comes before the committee with his bill, which I hope will be soon, I hope that he will make that announcement. I will put him on notice now that I will be asking that question because I believe it is important.
I have mentioned the disclosure of salaries, I have mentioned consulting fees and I have mentioned the subject of ministerial staff. I want the President of the Treasury Board to take a look at Bill C-123, the bill on government reorganization. Do you know what is in that bill, Mr. Speaker? One of the provisions in that bill is the appointment of four more parliamentary secretaries. It is interesting that the government has found a way to increase the salaries of some backbenchers of the government party by creating more part-time work. Under this bill parliamentary secretaries are to be appointed to ministers of state who have no portfolio responsibilities. I have to ask my friends in the Liberal Party whether that is the right thing to do in a time of restraint. I hope they will recognize that it is wrong. We ought not to be creating new positions in Parliament if we are asking the public service to join in what has been described as this crusade to national recovery.
If it is right that public servants be part of that crusade- and I think it is-is it not equally right that government backbenchers, the potential parliamentary secretaries who are to be appointed to ministers of state, should say: "We do not need that to be done, Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. President of the Treasury Board. Change Bill C-123. Do not give us that extra perk. Do not put a further drain on the public purse." I think that is the least they could ask.
I want to deal with one matter quickly since the hon. member for Rosedale will also be dealing with it later on today. I am speaking of the effect Bill C-124 will have. In particular I am referring to clauses 6 and 7. I have to confess that, while I approve generally of the matter of restraint, I really question the wisdom and judgment of this part of the bill. Clause 6 provides as follows:
Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, but subject to subsection (2), the terms and conditions of every compensation plan that is extended under Section 4 or 5, other than wage rates, shall continue in force without change for the period for which the compensation plan is extended.
Then there is the exception in subclause (2) which I believe the President of the Treasury Board has mentioned. It reads as follows:
The Treasury Board may, where it deems it appropriate, authorize any change to any terms and conditions, other than wage rates, of a compensation plan that would, but for Section 5, have expired before June 28, 1982.
Then Clause 7 provides:
Every collective agreement or arbitral award that includes a compensation plan that is extended under Section 4 or 5 shall, subject to this Part, continue in force without change for the period for which the compensation plan is extended.
I believe that the effect of this clause is to drive a horse and cart through the collective bargaining process in the public service of Canada. Why is that so important? I for one happen to believe that there is more to collective bargaining than the ultimate weapon, the strike. In fact, it was Tommy Douglas, a former premier of Saskatchewan, a former member of the
House and a former leader of the New Democratic Party with vast experience in Parliament over the years, who said that the strike as a weapon was obsolete. If the collective bargaining process means anything at all, it means that there is more to it than just that ultimate weapon.
Why do we collectively bargain? In an enlightened society we collectively bargain so that working conditions can be reasonable, so that there can be understanding through consultation between employers and employees, so that when there are wrongs to be righted they will be pointed out and righted, so that when there are balances to be adjusted they will be adjusted consultatively.
Employer-employee relations in Canada have moved a long way from the coal pits of England. In the 15 years or so of collective bargaining in the public service of Canada there has been a pretty good record. The fact of the matter is that, on whatever basis one wants to measure it, there have been fewer strikes in the public service than anywhere else in Canada. I am told that in 90 years of collective bargaining in the transportation industry there have been only three general strikes, and they were on the railroads. That is a tremendous record of achievement by management, employers and employees. Actually it is a magnificent achievement when we consider the complications, the number of unions and the number of companies. Somehow or other they have used their heads and have managed to settle matters.
The government, for reasons that I cannot comprehend and that the minister did not explain except in terms of restraint, has decided to take a step which must be described as a blunt instrument. I give the President of the Treasury Board and his officials their just due. This bill was prepared in a hurry. It may be that as a result of the speed with which the bill was prepared the question of restraint was approached with a certain sense of crudeness, if I may put it that way, and that upon reflection in time-and there still is some time-they could consider some possible changes to accomplish the restraint they want to accomplish.
I want them to listen carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosedale, but generally speaking I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board a rhetorical question about which he can think over the weekend. Why was it not possible to devise a means by which collective bargaining could carry on and ensure that in terms of compensation, no matter how the parties or the folks would like to distribute it, the compensation would not exceed the limits in the bill? In other words, is this the only way the government could act? Did it have to drive a horse and cart through collective bargaining in order to achieve restraint? Was there not sufficient imagination, foresight and faith in the collective bargaining system that something other than that crude instrument could have been used?
I hope the government will reflect upon these questions because they are important to us and to peace and stability in the country. I hope the government will reflect upon whether or not it could adopt the experience of other jurisdictions in this regard. Also I hope it decides that the bargaining process can continue within the bounds of restraint. If the government
July 9, 1982

does not do this, then many things will be lost which have been fruitful over the last 15 years. There is a danger that the good work and potential of the National Joint Council could be damaged to a great degree. I do not think anyone in the House would want to see that happen. The areas within which legitimate bargaining can take place on a non-monetary, nonpay or non-compensation basis can be affected very badly if this is allowed to continue.
I have in my hand a collective agreement, which is just one of hundreds between the Treasury Board and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and others, but these are deals with nurses. It covers a number of things which are unique to that group. I could spend the afternoon going over them item by item. They are unique in that group and many are non-monetary. In the circumstances as they exist now, there cannot be that face-to-face sense of collective bargaining where people meet in good faith to discuss mutual problems. I do not believe that it is beyond the wisdom of officials of the Government of Canada to substitute the blunt instrument of Clause 7 for good sense and reason.
While we have the time I want to say to the minister it is important, with respect to nurses, engineers and every other bargaining group within the public service, whether it is the Professional Institute of the Public Service, the PSAC or whatever, that we not lose what I believe is a reasonably good record of bargaining. There are some people who may think the opposite, but I believe the record has been sound in terms of negotiation.
There is more to negotiation than strike. In fact, many people do not know that public servants can make a choice; they can choose whether to go the conciliation-strike route or the arbitration route. There are many things wrong with arbitration. There is a limitation on things which may be dealt with by arbitration. I have some sympathy when they use the conciliation-strike route because they can bargain more broadly. I wonder whether we could fix up that system and whether the wisdom and energy which went into developing Clause 7 of the bill could be used positively to ensure that the system is workable. That is one problem.
There is another deeper problem which is just as significant to negotiating. It concerns a very fundamental industry in the country about which I spoke earlier-the transportation industry. In Canada there are publicly-owned railroads as well as privately owned railroads. The most important are the CNR and the CPR. One is private and one is public. Somehow this vast industry has been able to find the way, through enlightenment and experience, to achieve a certain amount-in fact a remarkable record-of industrial peace, given the complexity of the industry and its size.
The railway unions have divided into four separate bargaining groups. There is the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers which represents the men who actually operate the trains. There is the United Transportation Union, an amalgamation of former smaller unions representing a range of employees
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
involved in the operation of trains. These employees include conductors, brakemen and yardmen. The fourth division is the railway employees department, the AFL-CIO of the shop crafts, as they are usually referred to, which is a coalition of skilled trade unions whose members' main function is the maintenance of equipment. There is the Associated NonOperating Railways Unions Non-Ops, which is a coalition of unions representing the largest and most diverse range of railway employees, including office staff, train dispatchers, track maintenance employees, signalmen and more.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is in the House and he knows how large it is. There are 90,000 employees represented on one side of the bargaining table. It is my understanding that the opposite side is represented by 11 railway companies.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They sign separate contracts.


Walter David Baker: They do sign separate contracts. However, they do not bargain separately and that is the interesting point. The minister has said that they sign separate contracts, but the point is that they do not bargain separately. What is interesting is that good sense has managed to prevail and they have been able to work at bargaining together. There is a report of an inquiry commission on wider-based collective bargaining. This commission discussed the experience of the railway industry.
The reason this experience is important is that if the bill goes through as it is now framed, considering that the industry involves the private and public sector and that this bill deals generally with one jurisdiction, one of the segments, namely the public sector, will be subject to these compensation guidelines while the private sector will be subject to a different set of rules. This affects the transport industry with respect to road transport as well. The danger of this is that we will move away from that wider based bargaining to the experience that some of my colleagues have seen in British Columbia. It is the situation where a vast group of separate unions bargain separately, negotiate separately and have contracts expire at different times. The result of this is that there is, at least, a tendency toward problems in that industry.
I suggest to the minister, due to the importance of the transportation system to the life blood of this country, that he not only meet with the union people-the ones I have mentioned and those others whom he would wish to meet with- but that he also meet with the leadership in those companies to determine whether or not they are satisfied with this crude weapon, as I have called it. Surely we do not want this legislation to cause problems between employers and employees. We want to promote and augment wherever possible peace, harmony and understanding. Why do I say that? It is because that is what the country needs. We have suffered immeasurably in Canada because prime ministers and federal governments could not get along with provincial governments, employers and employees could not get along with each other and one region of Canada distrusts another region of Canada.

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
If there is the depth of concern that was expressed by the former auditor general that the country is on its economic knees, then every resource which we have must be gathered together. Every minute that is lost in a strike is a minute that will not be recovered. Every effort that is not undertaken to avoid trouble in these spheres will be a nail in the coffin of increased productivity which is so important to the country.
There must be leadership by the government, to be sure. But there must be leadership from other sectors in Canada as well. The employers and the unions of Canada have to show leadership. There is no rhyme or reason to the nonsensical rhetoric which was becoming obsolete in this country at the beginning of the twentieth century. Now we are at the end of the twentieth century, we must have that leadership.
In conclusion, since suggestions have been made on how to clarify and improve this bill, I suggest the government use its time over the weekend to have those consultations, so that when the bill goes to committee improvements can be made to it. With respect to the length of time for second reading in this debate, I apologize to the House for the length of time I have taken up to now, but while the debate in the House is short, I think it is important that the work in the committee be intense. It is very important that we have a piece of legislation which people may not favour but which they can live with reasonably. 1 hope this will be the result of the bill.
What we have before us now, if the minister is right-and I believe he is right in terms of the condition the country is m- is the challenge ahead of us which will require the best from all of us, no matter where we sit in the House or where we are in the economic spectrum. I do not believe that we should answer any siren songs except to say that if our plight is as bad as we say it is, which I believe it is, and if we are losing opportunities for young people as the statistics indicate, I think it is time to put the interests of the country first. I hope that will be the view of the government when it looks at this bill and the suggested changes to it.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to the last two speakers in this very important debate. After listening to the minister speak for 22 minutes and the spokesman for the official opposition party speak for an hour and 20 minutes, 1 still have a question which I hope one of the members of the opposition party can answer later. It relates to something said by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) after the budget came down on June 28. As reported in Macleans magazine:
But when asked what he would do in MacEachen's place, Crosbie demurred. "If I told you what I would do, we'd never get elected".
After listening to the previous hon. member, it makes me wonder, as I often do, what the Conservative Party really thinks concerning this particular legislation. What would the Conservative Party really do if it were the government at this time?


Thomas Edward Siddon: You will find out.


Rodney Edward Murphy: In the past we have heard the Conservative Party talk about slashing 60,000 jobs. We heard talk about federal employees. We heard all that conversation in the past. But today, because the Conservatives recognize that there is a tide running against the government, they are hiding. They do not want any more trips to Jerusalem. They do not want any more talk about slashing 60,000 federal jobs.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Let us hear your good ideas.


Rodney Edward Murphy: They are keeping quiet.
Now let me turn to the minister. He has called for a crusade. As a former history teacher, I know, and his parliamentary secretary should know, that crusades are usually against someone. They are not for someone. There are crusades against the Moslems, against the Catholics, against Protestants, against Jews, and now we have a crusade against federal government employees.


Donald James Johnston: Inflation!


Rodney Edward Murphy: In the speech of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) we did not hear any mention of high interest rates. We did not hear of a crusade against high interest rates. We did not hear of a crusade against high energy costs. For that matter, just last week we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) state in this House that he will not do anything to roll back the 30 per cent increase in energy costs which will be occurring over the next 18 months. So the crusade is not against inflation; the crusade is against workers.
In the speech given by the President of the Treasury Board we heard remarks to the effect that government workers are not laid off. Let me tell the hon. gentleman and this House that Crown corporation workers have been laid off. workers have been laid off from CN and from VIA Rail. So there are lay-offs.


Mr. Lewycky:: Big lay-offs.


Rodney Edward Murphy: There are very large lay-offs in the Crown corporations, as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) has said, and those people are affected by this legislation. Therefore, I hope that when this crusade goes rolling along, the Liberals and their supporters will tell the whole truth.
Bill C-124 has been presented to the House in many guises. The main guise is as an anti-inflation measure. It is being paraded as the primary measure that this Liberal government will be employing in order to bring the economy of Canada back on its feet again. In addition, it has been implied that Bill C-124 would somehow increase our competitive edge in international markets.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) have asked Canadians to accept sanctions similar to those listed in this legislation in a spirit of sharing and solidarity and as part of a co-operative approach to solving the problems Canada now faces. These problems are very serious. Our dollar is worth approximately six bits American. Yet
July 9, 1982

there is no indication that this lower value of the dollar will result in more exports abroad or in economic recovery.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It could. You have not seen the figures for last month.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Inflation continues to plague Canadians.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are now $6 billion ahead of last year, a $6 billion trade surplus in the first five months of this year!


Rodney Edward Murphy: If the minister who is in charge of cutting back rail services for most Canadians wishes to speak, I think he should rise when it is his turn.
Inflation continues to plague Canadians. The consumer price index went up 11.8 per cent in the month of May, year over year.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Need some research.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Unemployment in this country, if the hidden unemployed are included, is not approaching 1.3 million people but, rather, two million people.


Ian Deans: Maybe more.


Rodney Edward Murphy: High interest rates are making a mockery of our economy and of the dreams of many Canadians. High interest rates have hurt pensioners who wish to take out small loans to go on vacations. It has hurt couples who wish to buy or to keep their houses. It has hurt the businessmen and businesswomen who want to be their own bosses and who wish to contribute to Canada's economy in their own way. Lay-offs, both temporary and permanent, are occurring almost every day. If I had the time I would go through the list of our difficulties, but it is very extensive. I do not have the time in my speech to list all the problems facing our economy.
We understand that it is natural for this government to ask Canadians to share the burden, to express their solidarity and to co-operate in this time of serious adversity. In fact, I believe that the senior members of this government know that the economic situation is even more drastic and our economy is in much more peril than they would dare admit. Was that not the message of the Prime Minister to the Premiers behind closed doors last week? Did he not admit that even the gloomy pictures given to us by the President of the Treasury Board and by the Minister of Finance last week were actually rosy compared to the true situation that Canada faces?
We in the New Democratic Party have been willing to admit the reality of our situation. For that matter, throughout the last two years of the Liberal government and of the Clark Conservative regime that preceded it, we have said that we faced an economic calamity more serious than either of those two governments would admit. We recognized that the international situation was worsening, as was the situation in Canada, with its decaying manufacturing sector, its branch plant economy, its limited investment in research and development, while its government, whether Liberal or Conservative, was rushing to increase energy prices to world levels at a time when most countries would take advantage of their natural resources. If those countries had cheap labour, they would take
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
advantage of it to produce goods. Countries with cheap gas or oil would be using it to their advantage to ensure that their economies were strong. But that is not the philosophy of the Liberal government and it was not the philosophy of the Conservative government which preceded it.
With all those conditions involving the international situation and with our own decaying manufacturing sector, there was this quick rush to get energy prices up to almost world levels. We knew that Canada would be in worse shape than most other nations.
We agree that it is now a time for sharing, for solidarity, for co-operation by Canadians. We believe that there must be a national strategy to help both individual Canadians and the Canadian economy, but that is not what this bill provides. This bill is an ill-conceived attempt to shift the blame, to take the heat off the government and to make Canadians forget that the Liberal Party has no economic plan, no national strategy and no sense of Canada's future.


Jean-Luc Pepin: A lot of rhetoric.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Liberal government campaigned in 1980 to strengthen the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Why was that done? Senator Davey admitted that it was done to take New Democratic votes. That was the purpose of that promise in the 1980 election campaign. It was not an economic plan to control our own economy. But what has happened just in the last week? We have seen a Liberal government which has gutted the Foreign Investment Review Agency, not to improve the prospects of Canada's economy but, rather, in a cynical move to play up to the multinationals and to undercut the Tory policy of dismantling FIRA. That is the cynical, nonplanning, devious action brought forward by the government in this particular bill. It is the type of thing it has done in many other cases, but again we do not have the time to mention them during this debate.
This legislation before us now is both cynical and devious. It is cynical in that it seeks to find a scapegoat for our economic waste. It is devious in that it not only denies federal employees the right to negotiate wage increases but rolls back wage increases this government has already agreed to with its employees.
Even worse than that, it denies federal employees the right to negotiate any other items, regardless of whether or not they are monetary. In other words, most federal employees have lost the right to negotiate because of this legislation. Under the guise of a wage restraint program, the government has revoked the right of government employees to seek paid maternity leave, to negotiate technological change clauses, to negotiate occupational health and safety protection and to negotiate security against unfair disciplinary actions and any other nonwage item that a group of government workers would like to negotiate.

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
This has been sneaked in on a program which the minister has called a crusade against inflation. Why have these underhanded measures been introduced? Certainly it is not to fight inflation, unemployment or high interest rates. This government must have a reason for its deviousness. Is it because it has become so anti-union, so opposed to the rights of workers or so in need of creating a diversion that it has deliberately denied government workers the right to negotiate and destroy the collective bargaining process?
Why? Is it that this government has deliberately created a confrontation with labour and thereby hopes to ease the Liberal Party out of the plight it is in at the present time, or is it one of a number of devious steps taken by this government to destroy the right of the public service to collective bargaining? The government has never believed in collective bargaining. Certainly the actions of the President of the Treasury Board as well as his speeches over the past year have indicated that he wishes to diminish that power in the public service.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That's garbage.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It may be garbage in the hon. member's mind, but he should look at the actions. He has hurt air traffic controllers by preventing them from being able to strike. He has designated so many controllers that any strike would be ineffective. More nurses have been designated than employees. The five members in the Liberal Party presently in the chamber know what the government is doing, but certainly will not admit to the public, especially the federal employees, what they are up to.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You need a researcher.


Rodney Edward Murphy: My researcher was with the public service. She understands what the government is doing. Unfortunately, the minister does not have a researcher who understands transportation.
I would like to know what message the government is trying to give to Canadians. Why is it saying that these federal employees cannot negotiate items such as paid maternity leave, occupational health and safety programs or security against unfair disciplinary actions? Most of these are not monetary items. Most do not have anything to do with the supposed fight against inflation by the government. It is one of the most antiunion acts I have ever seen.
Where the government is failing to act through progressive legislation, perhaps it does not want either the private or the public sectors to negotiate clauses for paid maternity leave, dental plans or adequate health and safety legislation. Maybe that is the message it is trying to get out. I suspect that, with the deviousness of this government, we will never know.
The clause of this legislation which denies any collective bargaining at all to many government employees is completely unacceptable. It has nothing to do with wage controls. It is nothing less than the most blatant attempt to destroy the rights of workers. It is a move that not even the AIP program, which the minister should be familiar with, or the legislation which
invoked that program came close to matching this program in that respect.
The reason for this bill is to fight inflation by controlling wages in the public sector. The government expects the private sector to follow its example. That is garbage. No employee or group of lower-middle-income employees is going to accept voluntarily pay increases limited to 6 per cent as long as the cost of living is 12 per cent.
As a result of this legislation, federal government employees will lose protection against increases in the cost of living. If the cost of living continues to escalate to 12, 14 or 15 per cent next year, they will still be restricted to a 6 per cent increase. This government has pretended that limiting senators, judges, cabinet ministers, Members of Parliament and senior officials to 6 per cent will somehow make this legislation fair. That is ridiculous. It is untrue.
Let us examine the unfairness of this 6 per cent salary provision. A cabinet minister earning $102,000 a year will be entitled to a pay raise of $6,000. A senior official with a salary of $80,000 will be entitled to a pay increase of $4,800. A low paid employee earning $12,000 will be entitled to a pay increase of $720. In other words, it will take the low paid employee 102 work days to earn the increase granted to somebody earning $80,000. That worker has to work for two fifths of the year to earn as much as the increase given to somebody earning $80,000.
That employee will have to work half a year to earn as much as the increase that will be granted to a cabinet minister under this legislation. Is that fair? Is that justice?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It will be fair if they work the same hours.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I have never heard such crap in my life and I have heard a hell of a lot of it. Is the hon. member telling me that someone who earns $12,000 only works one twelfth as hard as a cabinet minister or one fifth as hard as a senior official? That is not true.


Mark Willson Rose: Tell him to go stick his head in the Miramichi.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Perhaps the hon. member should find another shovel to open another prison in his riding. 1 understand they had four sod-turning ceremonies for the same prison by the same government in his riding. Perhaps that is the make-work project of the government.
To get back to the very serious matter before us, this legislation prentends to be fair, but it certainly is not fair. Does this legislation provide protection against cost of living increases? No, it does not. Of course not.
Can we expect the private sector to follow this ridiculous legislation? For the most part, no, but to some degree, yes, because last night the Prime Minister met with representatives of Canada's largest businesses, and these people said they are
July 9, 1982

willing to accept 6 per cent for their employees, and even for themselves.
1 would like to discuss their salaries to show why they are willing to accept 6 per cent increases. I am referring to an article in The Financial Post of May 15, 1982 which includes a list of the cash and cash equivalent remunerations of a number of senior officials in Canadian industry. As the House knows, we cannot get this information in Canada. We have to go down to the United States to find out what our captains of industry are earning. Let me refer to the salaries and cash equivalent remunerations of just a few of these people. C. F. Baird, chairman of Inco Limited, receives $425,645 a year. D. M. Culver, president of Alcan Aluminium, receives $532,941 a year. Ian D. Sinclair, chairman of Canadian Pacific Enterprises, receives $556,228 a year. A. J. de Grandpre, chairman of Bell Canada, receives $626,000 a year. J. A. Armstrong, chairman of Imperial Oil, receives $736,741 a year.


Ian Deans: How does anyone spend that?


Rodney Edward Murphy: E. M. Bronfman, chairman of the Seagram Company, receives $1,064,288.


Ian Deans: And he feels hard done by.


Rodney Edward Murphy: He also receives $1.3 million in contingent remuneration for benefit and profit-sharing plans. He is the $2 million man.
I am not surprised these people feel they can survive under a restraint program which would allow them 6 per cent increases, but these barefoot boys from Bay Street are volunteering to restrain their workers' wages. We are not surprised by that. Even the anti-inflation program put some limits on increases. There was a $600 minimum increase and a $2,400 maximum increase. This program does not have that. It is an old story. The same law applies to the poor as to the rich except that it only affects the poor.
I am not surprised that after the meeting yesterday with the Prime Minister the presidents and chairmen of various corporations, who have earnings in excess of $500,000 a year each in wages alone, support the program of the government. They can survive on increases of $30,000 plus a year because most Canadians do not even earn that much. These high priests of the government's crusade will be receiving more by way of increases next year than any government worker.


Mr. Cullen:: How many jobs have they created?


Ian Deans: Not one. Personally, not one.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Of course, there are no strong unions in these operations. These high priests of restraint will force bank clerks, cleaning staffs, maintenance help and sales clerks to accept 6 per cent in order to support the government's fight against inflation. What bloody hypocrisy!
The government is calling for co-operation in all sectors of the Canadian economy. It has called the premiers, business leaders and worker representatives in for consultations and, as
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
often is the case with this government, the consultations occurred after the decision was made. Because some union leaders have been reluctant to meet with the government to discuss the Liberal concept of sharing, solidarity-


Mark Willson Rose: Caring.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -caring-


Mark Willson Rose: Co-operation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -and co-operation, some Liberals in this House have been upset, but the actions of the government are very much like those of a rapist. After the deed is done, he talks to his victim and says, "We must meet and discuss this matter". The government has stripped public service employees of any right to bargain monetary or non-monetary items. It has deprived workers of protection against the increased cost of living, and now it wants to meet with those workers to discuss the plan. The government is completely unwilling to control energy prices, which will increase 30 per cent next year. The government is completely unwilling to control high interest rates, which approach 20 per cent for some loans and much more for most personal loans. But now it wants one sector of the economy to co-operate and somehow provide a demonstration for other sectors. If the government really wanted a program designed to fight inflation and redevelop our economy, it would be a program which attacks the enemies of our economy. Those enemies are quick increases in energy prices and the high interest rates most Canadians are facing and because of which they are suffering.
I am glad most union leaders have agreed to meet with the Prime Minister and senior cabinet ministers to discuss what can be done. I know their concern is real, and I hope their meetings with the government will be fruitful and result in some action that is acceptable to Canadians.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: However, I must say that the scheme we have before us today will only increase the problems Canadians face. It will only increase income disparity in this country. The "highly paid pencil pushers who will be hurt" in reality are the people in government hospitals who earn $11,055 a year. They are the teacher aides in Atlantic Canada who earn $9,631 a year, the typists in Winnipeg who earn $1 1,353 a year and office equipment workers in Vancouver who earn $11,379 a year. These people do not earn the great salaries many people think public servants earn. These are the people who, because of this program, will receive very small increases in their salaries. With this increase of only 6 per cent the clerk with two children to support will find that his or her salary increase will bring his or her salary to just over $12,000, which means that his or her family is condemned to continue living below the poverty line and to fall even further behind in the years following. The poverty line in Ottawa for a family of three

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
persons is $12,448. This person will be earning just over $12,000. He or she qualifies to be considered poor.
We heard earlier in this debate that last year in Sherbrooke, Quebec, a federal civil servant applied for welfare because his salary was so low. In Winnipeg, Rhonda Gordon worked for the army but had to quit her work for the army and go on welfare to support her single-parent family. People like these are the people who will be hurt by this legislation, and it is time we stopped pretending we are hurting the rich. It is time we stopped talking about the sacrifices of those who are living comfortably. Let us talk about those people who are really making the sacrifices. Let us talk about those who earn $9,000, $10,000, $11,000 or $12,000. They will be making sacrifices so that cabinet ministers can receive $102,000. They will be making the sacrifice so the Bronfmans can make a million dollars. Do you know how many people could be employed if the Bronfmans would accept a meagre $150,000 a year? How many more jobs would be created if that happened?
This program is only going to increase the disparity between those with and those without. The last anti-inflation program redistributed income upward. In other words, the government played Robin Hood in reverse; it stole from the poor to give to the well off. This program will be even worse. For women who fill most of the low paying jobs in the federal civil service the 6 per cent and 5 per cent formula will mean that their incomes will fall even further behind. The differential between male and female salaries will increase. The talk of an amendment to allow the Human Rights Commission to investigate discrimination will do little to help most low paid female government employees, or those in the private sector whose employers will force them to accept increases of only 6 per cent.
The truth is there for all to see, Mr. Speaker. This government and this legislation will hurt women and the families they support. No public relations job, no national crusade, no speech by the minister responsible for the status of women can camouflage the real effect of this bill. Women fill only 4.3 per cent of senior management positions, but they comprise 82 per cent of the low paid administrative support positions. They are the cleaning ladies, teachers' aides, clerks and office equipment workers who receive salaries from $9,000 to $12,000 a year. It is obviously they who will be hurt by this legislation. The problem is that this program is really not out to fight inflation. In a document leaked to my party leader last year the reason for this program was exposed as follows:
-a program of consultation and public relations aimed at changing public attitudes and expectations would be useful-even though 'the main advantage of the program would be that it would enable the government to be seen doing something about inflation and to lay part of the blame for inflation on the private sector.'
This same document also indicates this:
-"we are not currently facing a wage-driven inflation such as we were in 1975"-instead real wages have fallen for 4 (now 5) consecutive years-
So the government has admitted in its documentation that inflation is not caused by wages. That is a government document I am quoting, not an NDP document, and it admits that the main advantage would be in PR and shifting the blame
away from the government. So how can the government-and in this 1 agree with the spokesman of the official opposition- expect Canadians to believe that members opposite, cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister are the real crusaders? They have not been, Mr. Speaker.
If you check the wage increases of federal civil servants, you will find that they have not kept pace with the cost of living increases in the last five years. In the first quarter of 1978, wage increases in the federal public service were 6.6 per cent. The increase in the consumer price index was 8.8 per cent. In the first quarter of 1970, public service wages increased 6.4 per cent; the CPI went up 9.1 per cent. In 1980, wages increased 6.6 per cent, and the CPI went up 9.4 per cent. In the first quarter of 1981, federal civil service wages increased by 8.8 per cent, and the CPI went up 12.2 per cent. What does this indicate? It indicates that at the present time, even with the right to collective bargaining, federal employees are not keeping up with the cost of living. This bill means that federal civil servants will get only half as much as the increase in the cost of living, assuming that it only increases at the present rate of 12 per cent. If it goes up 15 per cent or 16 per cent, and increases are limited to 6 per cent, then we can see that the federal employees are the real scapegoats of this government program.
We have heard, from some ministers, Mr. Speaker, that somehow this program is going to help the unemployed. Let me point out again that according to the Conference Board study of the AIB, those controls resulted in the loss of several thousands of jobs. I repeat: several thousands of jobs. This program will do the same because Canadians who are having a tough time now making their mortgage payments or paying for their heat will have less money to spend on other goods. In other words, there will be less need for Canadians to produce goods and therefore fewer jobs for Canadians. That is what is happening. You can look at government documentation, at the Conference Board, and you can look at our history and know that is the case, but this government has a very cynical motive and it does not care what happens to Canadian jobs. So we have a program which is both cynical and devious. It will do nothing for the economy but it will meet the stated Liberal objective of "to be seen to be doing something about inflation".
As part of that same government document I referred to earlier, Mr. Speaker, the decision that public servants take the heat is part of a coherent plan which has been laid out and part of which has been already implemented. It is a deliberate plan by this government to take the heat off itself, and just as we have seen a public relations budget, we are seeing a public relations wage control legislation to rescue not the faltering Canadian economy, but simply to rescue the faltering Liberal Party. Surely this government, which can no longer be trusted by Canadians, must resign. Surely this government, which is asking for the co-operation of Canadians, must recognize that it does not have the trust of Canadians. If Canadians are to
July 9, 1982

have any trust in or co-operate with government, they must believe in the integrity of that government, and they do not believe in the integrity of this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may, of course, continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to conclude. 1 have almost come to the end of my remarks on this bill. However, 1 would like to say that this bill is going to hurt Canadians and the Canadian economy. It has the potential to make federal employees the scapegoats of federal action. If that is the case, it will poison the relationship between government and its employees for years to come.
Bill C-124 is an unfortunate bill. Not only that, it will not help Canadians overcome the problems they face. This bill will do nothing about inflation. It will do nothing about high interest rates. It will do nothing about the high price of energy. It will do nothing about unemployment.
The bill should be withdrawn. The government should consult with the different sectors of the Canadian economy before introducing a comprehensive package, whatever that might include. But if the government cannot do that, and if it cannot show some economic wisdom rather than political connivance, then the government should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say I listened with some disappointment to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I think it is appropriate that members of the New Democratic Party stand up and take their traditional roles or make their traditional speeches but when they have finished their ten or fifteen minute introductions, we should hear alternatives from them. We should hear some indication about how this bill might be improved. If they think we should withdraw this bill, we should hear what kind of a bill they would introduce.
The hon. member for Churchill talks pretty glibly about who will be hurt by this legislation. People are not being asked to take a cut; we are asking Canadians, particularly those in the civil service, not to take as large an increase as they had anticipated. There is no cut. I must say that following the opportunity I have had to talk with civil servants, particularly in the Ottawa area, it seems to me they are prepared to make that sacrifice, if that is the appropriate word-but to take that particular cut-


Ian Deans: You said it is not a cut.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -because they see it as their role and part of their responsibility to the Canadian economy. There are 500,000 civil servants who are in a position to make a significant impact and show some leadership in this field.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
I compliment the government and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) for having the courage to bring forward this particular bill as the cutting edge against inflation. As the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, the people who will take the leadership are the civil servants at the federal level. They are the ones who will set a pattern, and if they are followed by other segments of the economy at the provincial and municipal level, and certainly in the private sector, we will have a 6 per cent inflation factor in Canada.
The hon. member who preceded me from Churchill spoke very glibly about who will be hurt. I ask him who will be hurt if no action is taken? Will it not be the women in those low paying categories that he was talking about who will suffer? What about the pensioner on a fixed income? They are the people who will be hurt, because if we do not take action of this nature we will very soon we be looking at a 20 per cent inflation factor. Then those people would really have something to complain about because no action was taken by the federal government.
The hon. member says those who will be hurt will be the people earning $9,000 or $11,000 a year. But those people are fortunate to have a job. Today we heard the atrocious unemployment figures. The invidious nature of inflation is that it impacts on the unemployed, particularly, because it is very difficult for them to get back into the job market; even more so if we had an inflation rate of 20 per cent, which I am sure would come to pass if we did not show some leadership at this time.
If the hon. member has a genuine concern for people, and knowing the hon. member personally, I know he has, I do not think he should lose sight of the fact that there are many people unemployed who are looking for some help, guidance and hope. If you listen to the hon. member for Churchill, it would seem that the only light the New Democratic Party sees at the end of the tunnel is that of an oncoming train. That seems to be the kind of hope which the NDP would hold out for our young people and those who are unemployed.
1 am satisfied that this was not an easy decision for the government to take. It was not easy to ask the government's employees, although the government asks itself, members of its party and Members of Parliament, to take a 6 per cent and a 5 per cent increase. The government is saying to its employees, "We are looking to you to help us in this particular fight and in this particular attempt to buoy up the economy and bring down the inflation rate to 6 per cent." I think civil servants, those working out there in the field, the front line troops, are prepared to make that particular move. I think they want to know that when they look around, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said, they will see that they are not alone. I think they want to see employees of provincial governments, the municipal governments and those working in the private sector behind them. If the federal civil servants take this leadership and they are followed, they will feel very good about

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
the role they have been called upon to play. When the inflation rate comes down to 6 per cent, I hope people will not forget that it was the federal civil servants who led the way to that victory. Certainly I will mention it over and over again in my riding.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton mentioned collective bargaining in the civil service. I do not think too many people have to be reminded that it was a Liberal government which gave that particular right to civil servants.


Walter David Baker: No. It was by unanimous consent of the House.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have to say that the record has been good. I agree with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton about that.
I think over all there is something in excess of 200 bargaining units. When you look at the fact that this legislation has been in place over 15 years the record has been excellent. I think the hon. member mentioned one exception, where he thought the settlement was too high. Perhaps it was a caving in, or it might have been more appropriate had the government been a little tougher, but in looking at an excess of 200 collective bargaining units, all operating at different levels with different areas of responsibility, the record has been excellent.
Nobody should kid the civil servants. Nobody should kid people who want to come and work for the federal civil service, that there is free collective bargaining. There is not free collective bargaining. There comes a time when the federal government must take its responsibility and say, "We have to end this strike. We have to pass legislation ordering people back to work because it is inappropriate for the strike to continue beyond a particular time." That is not a problem that the private sector or unions in the private sector face. People in the civil service, whether they are in the federal or the provincial civil service, must face the ultimate reality that when their actions begin to impinge on the Canadian economy and the good of all Canadians then the government or Parliament must take its responsibility. That has been the experience, and I must say to the credit of the unions that it has not been necessary to do it very often.
When the NDP looks at this place of legislation, it has a tendency to forget what has taken place in the past. What about the progressive legislation that has been put in place; not as a result of efforts of the New Democratic Party, though maybe there was some prodding from that party, and not at the initiative of the Progressive Conservative Party, but there was also some prodding from them? The progressive legislation was put in place by consistent and continuing Liberal governments.
If we did not have these in place, what would be the real impact on the unemployed on those who had not made plans for pensions at retirement? This is why we have put in place programs such as unemployment insurance.
Today I received a telephone call from a radio station which was being very critical of the fact that the union in Sudbury
decided to strike, then recognized the dilemma and the difficulties being faced by International Nickel because of current nickel markets, and accepted a settlement that moved the employees from strike pay to unemployment insurance. Thank God for unemployment insurance and that these people have such an opportunity. This not only helps workers who are no longer on strike, who no longer have jobs and face lay-offs until October, because they will be receiving that income, but the whole community of Sudbury-the people selling groceries, the people cutting hair or the people selling clothers. Those moneys are not going into any socks, into deposit certificates or bank accounts; they are going into the economy to the benefit of the workers and certainly to the benefit of the community at large. It was the Liberal government which put that system into place at a time when the economy was in better shape.
I do not need to catalogue all the programs which have been put in place such as an indexed Canada Pension Plan, old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement, the registered retirement savings plan and medicare. All these progressive moves were put in place so that Canadians would be better able to survive in difficult times than those in other countries who do not have the benefit of these particular protections.
1 looked at the percentage at which we were aiming. The 6 per cent figure was not just picked out of the air. After careful study it was determined that when a recovery takes place it would be more devastating than ever if Canadians were not in a position to compete and to participate in the recovery. If they were slowed down in the recovery, then we would really see unemployment and the devastating effects of high inflation. As I said earlier, it would be much higher than the 11.5 per cent or 12 per cent of today.
I understand that some members of the New Democratic Party may be participating in this debate on Monday. Perhaps they will come up with something positive concerning what could be done. The only suggestion I heard so far was that we should increase the size of the deficit and use that money for job creation. If that does not have a stimulative impact upon the economy, then all we would have is a larger deficit.
Also they recommended exchange controls, but when it was pointed out to them that many ordinary Canadians took trips around the world despite present economic conditions in Canada-and I understand it is at record rates even this year-they changed their tune. When hon. members of the NDP recognized that exchange controls would impact upon Canadian travellers going to the United States, abroad or elsewhere, they suggested selective exchange controls and gradually slipped out of their nomenclature. I do not think we will hear very much about exchange controls because every-time they come up with an idea, if it has any practicality, it is adopted and improved upon. God knows, the Liberal Party in the past has not been hesitant to pick up on ideas, to improve upon them and to include them in legislation. But I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and others, "Please do
July 9, 1982

not bring in exchange controls or selective exchange controls", whatever they might mean in the nomenclature of the New Democratic Party.
Also it was suggested that nothing is being done at the present time. We know that there is tragically high unemployment. We all know that British Columbia's revenue or source of strength for its economy is the sale of timber and lumber and that approximately 90 per cent of its market is in the United States. If Americans are not buying, it is no wonder that the catalogue of small communities mentioned today by a member of the NDP are in difficulty. If they cannot sell their products, the plants close down; of course this causes unemployment. I am not blaming it upon the United States. It is simply an indicator that that is where the markets are and if the Americans are not buying, the Canadian community of 20 to 25 million people is not large enough to absorb the commodity; thus the economy of British Columbia suffers.
Earlier I mentioned the situation faced by International Nickel. Nickel and copper prices are at an all-time low, so this company cannot make a profit. In fact, the market is not out there, to the point where it has to close down shops. I guess it could be producing to some extent to build up massive inventories, but this would be counterproductive in the long run because it may extend the length of the lay-off rather than have any beneficial effect. Thus, a business economic decision has been made in that particular industry.
Getting closer to home, I represent an area which is the petrochemical centre of Canada. The situation last year was that corporations in the United States were saying that they would take X amount of this particular product and that their prospective purchases would be X amount. Then six months later they came back and said that their inventories were too high and that they could not keep up that size of purchase. As a result, a corporation as large as Polysar had to close down for a month. It told its employees to take their holidays and tried to work out some system whereby the impact of the closure was limited as much as possible. It faced the ultimate reality that those purchasers or those markets were telling them that their inventories were too high and that until their economy picks up they would not be of much assistance.
I suppose it is fair ball for the NDP to take a crack at the large salaries which are being paid to the heads of many of these corporations. I had envisioned their salaries to be somewhere around $200,000 or $300,000. Perhaps 1 was thinking back to the 1970 era, but I knew they also had stock options and certainly opportunities as heads of these corporations. The brains, the intelligence and the ability which these people put into these large industries create many of the jobs in Canada. Frankly, the vast majority of Canadian jobs are provided by small business people, but we would ignore at our peril the talent and ability that these giants of industry bring to our economy because they are in positions to know nationally and internationally what is needed to make them successful and competitive. Unless they move around the world to seek out markets and to work hand in glove with the Export Development Corporation and our excellent Minister of State for
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
International Trade (Mr. Lumley), we will be in very difficult economic circumstances because we will not have the advantage of those particular people. It may be fair game to say that they are overpaid, but frankly I do not know how anyone could say so. I should like to know the situations with which their companies are faced, how much money they make and how much the economy benefits from the decisions made by these corporate giants. I have seen them fired when appropriation decisions were not made. I have seen them looking elsewhere because they were unable to produce or to live up to the expectations which were held out for them in the first instance.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member permit a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as the poem indicates, I am in high flight right now and I do not want to be shot down in midstream. Perhaps when I complete my remarks I will entertain a question.
I should like to deal with another issue which was raised by the hon. member for Churchill. I was surprised to learn that at least he was reading The Financial Post or the Financial Times. He quoted statistics from one of those two publications. He was being very selective because he did not refer to the increase in salaries from 1970 to 1980 shown in the particular issue from which he quoted. More important, he did not point out the productivity to which reference was made in the article. If we do not get our productivity up, no corporation will be able to succeed, no corporation in Canada will be able to compete in international markets; this is what the article indicated. I commend the hon. member. I am not saying that he should have read it aloud in the House of Commons, but I hope he will have a look at The Financial Post or the Financial Times to see what are the difficulties and what the business community is endeavouring to do. It is the business community, in the final analysis, which provides jobs for the people about whom he and I are both concerned.
There is another group in the community upon which we must depend more and more-the individual entrepreneur. I am proud to say that when I was the former minister of immigration we looked with great favour on the billions-not millions-of dollars that entrepreneurs were bringing into Canada. Immigrants were bringing that money into the country and investing in Canada. They would say to us that this is a great country in which to invest.
Sometimes I wonder, when I hear people being critical of the economy, saying there is no future here, while at the same time I see people moving hundreds of millions of dollars of investment into this country. They do that because they have seen the world and have decided this is the place which provides the greatest opportunity, the place where they want to work, invest and have their children educated. They want their children to have the quality of life which is available in Canada.

July 9, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
There is not just a small group of people that applies to come to Canada. People can select almost any country in the world, other than their own, in which to live. Anywhere from 800,000 to a million people apply each year to come to Canada. Therefore, when I hear people say there is no hope that their children will never own a home or receive the education which they deserve, and that there will be no jobs for them, I say that is nonsense. The record does not indicate that, and the record in the future will certainly show that this is not the case.
The call for leadership has gone out, and I believe it has been heeded by this government. I believe this particular bill is a step in the right direction. I believe that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was correct to point out that when we are dealing with the two bargaining units involving 500 thousand people, there will be some inequities. There is no question about that. If some of these inequities can be corrected, with people still being required to participate in what is sometimes called a "crusade", but what I say is a fight against inflation to bring it down to 6 per cent, I have enough faith and confidence in the President of the Treasury Board that they will be corrected.
The over-all leadership position of the government is clearly correct in this instance. It is never easy to call upon your employees, particularly one half million of them, to take the lead and make the sacrifice. Frankly, I am a little disappointed in what I have heard so far. I hope that the meeting with the labour groups will produce more positive reaction than what I have heard some labour leaders espouse.
1 am less than optimistic about the leader of the Canadian Labour Congress. For the life of me I cannot see this long time Liberal hater and NDP supporter doing anything which will be of any help in this particular instance. For once I would like to see him take a positive stance, not only on behalf of union people but on behalf of the 1.3 million who are now unemployed. If we can get the inflation rate down to 6 per cent, with his co-operation, then his contribution will be phenomenal. He has an opportunity to be a great Canadian, to take a great lead and, at long last, say something tough to the unions.
The union workers are prepared to make the sacrifice, but if they are given a con job by the leaders of the unions, that this is inappropriate and unworkable and that the unions will not participate, I suggest he will be doing a disservice to the union workers, all those who work and the union movement itself.
I recently heard Mr. Samson, the head of the public service union, talking about a war measures act on the economy and a war measures act against civil servants. Hyperbole will not get us anywhere. I ask him to spend some time, not just talking to the leaders or speaking rhetoric to the union leadership but talking to the grassroots members of the civil service. He will discover that they are prepared to make a sacrifice. Admittedly, we must get the message across that others will have to participate in this fight, but if he begins by talking in a negative way, such as Jean Claude Parrot has done, he will be doing a disservice to his union and his country.
I ask union leaders to accept their responsibility. I ask them to cross the lines of management and labour, government and labour confrontation. I ask them in this instance to get on side, for once, with the economy to help lower our inflation rate to 6 per cent.
They should not come out with rhetoric such as that of Dennis McDermott. He said that "if we get 6 per cent instead of 12 per cent we will give them a 6 per cent effort". What kind of garbage is that? What kind of leadership is that? He has access to vast amounts of talent and skill at the Canadian Labour Congress headquarters. He has an obligation to consult with those experts in order to determine how Canada can be helped by the union movement. He had better not let the union movement down at this time because I can honestly tell him that Canadians are just waiting to take a knock at the union members. I do think that is inappropriate because union members have been very responsible and responsive in this country. They have not pursued exorbitant increases in wages. If someone like Dennis McDermott gets them riled up, uses hyperbole and becomes "Dennis the Demagogue", his actions will be a great detriment to Canada, the union movement and, most importantly, to the people who are unemployed at the present time.
As I have said, there will be some inequities in this legislation. Some will suffer and be more disadvantaged than others. That will be the extended role they will be called upon to play. I am old enough to remember one world war. I did not participate in it, but I know that many people in the military went out prepared to do their part, whatever they were called upon to do. There was unfairness at that time as well.
In the First World War, some had to go over the top while others were sitting back in Canada repairing trucks. However, everyone was prepared to do his part and play his role within the limits of his God-given abilities. People were prepared to make the sacrifice and play the role they were asked to play even if it was not fair. War is never fair. There is always someone who is not doing his job or not prepared to take the risk or responsibility. There are those who have to take the responsibility of leadership because others do not want it. That was unfair; some were disadvantaged and suffered as a result. Many gave their lives to that cause.
When Canadians begin to think of unfairness, I ask them to remember that this is the greatest country in the world. This is a country which has and will give them the greatest opportunities. Canadians can be confident that their children will grow up in a free country where they will have benefits never dreamed of. This is truly a land of opportunity, but if we kiss it away now through inaction, not following the lead, we will be shirking our responsibilities.
We cannot allow inflation to rise to somewhere between 30 per cent and 40 per cent and then brag about reducing it. We have an obligation to the Canadian people and the generation of Canadians who made sacrifices in the two wars and the Korean War; we have an obligation to the future generation not to let this opportunity slip away.
July 9, 1982

As Members of Parliament we have an obligation to make recommendations. I have recommended that we should establish a Canada fund. People should be able to have money deducted from their wages to be deposited in this Canada fund. This fund should pay 6 per cent, 7 per cent or 8 per cent of non-taxable interest. This money could be loaned to farmers, and small-business men. I can assure the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) that Canadians would rally around that fund. They would take their money out of their socks and their bank accounts if they knew that they were contributing to the well-being of Canada. This recommendation has not been accepted in its entirety, but it is the germ of an idea which we have an obligation to propose.
As Members of Parliament, we have an obligation to point out to the government and the treasury benches what can be done in our own particular ridings which could help the economy. If this involves asking for a better airport in Sarnia or Calgary, or getting a better port in St. John's, we have that obligation. If we do not perform our functions properly we are doing a disservice to our constituents. While our job entails several responsibilities, our greatest responsibility is not to fail the Canadian public at a time when it is crying for our leadership. The leadership is there. We are prepared to make the move. The civil servant is prepared to make the move. I ask my fellow Canadians not to let the civil servants down, and not to let the country down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders preceding No. 1 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: that Bill C-201, to amend the Holidays Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Holidays Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark Willson Rose: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Mark Willson Rose: Just this bill, or what?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


Walter David Baker: What is going on?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the-


David P. Smith: I rise on a point of order. Perhaps we could seek the unanimous consent of the House to see if this matter could be dealt with in Committee of the Whole so that we could deal with all stages of this bill today, as it seems to be meeting with the approval of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I started to declare that the motion was carried. The hon. member's point of order is a little premature, the Chair will now entertain the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) on his point of order.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could see whether the House would be disposed to give unanimous consent to this bill being dealt with in Committee of the Whole today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole?
Is the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) rising?


Mark Willson Rose: I am not rising, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Francis in the chair.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-201, an act to amend the Holidays Act.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we now proceed to another order of business?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there might be unanimous consent that the clock now read five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 9, 1982
Holidays Act


Walter David Baker: As a member of the House, I would agree and I think it would be quite appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I, too, agree. 1 think this is a day on which to develop and to celebrate our new holiday. It is only appropriate that, in celebrating our new holiday called Canada Day we should at least take a holiday of 55 minutes this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. This House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.05 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 12, 1982