1983-01-21

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21. Presently the Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe has recessed and will resume in Madrid in February this year. At this time it is perhaps important to re-examine Canada's commitment to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act.
When the Final Act was signed in Helsinki in 1975, the 39 participating states agreed to uphold the basic principles outlined in the Final Act, principles which addressed cooperation in economic, technological, scientific and humanitarian fields.
In view of the tense international situation and the gross violations of human rights practised by many of the signatories of the Final Act, it is important that the concluding document of the Conference contain a balance between all spheres of the Final Act. Scientific, technological and economic co-operation cannot be achieved without government observance of human rights. One precludes the other. The enshrinement in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of human rights and rights to fundamental freedoms defines our commitment to this cause. Thus, when the concluding document is drafted, Canada should insist that human rights be one of the major foci of the document.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise on an urgent matter pertaining to agricultural production in Canada. Income from agricultural production has dropped significantly in the past year. Some farm experts have projected that 1983 agricultural income will drop 28 per cent to 32 per cent while the cost of production continues to rise at the same time.
The federal Government's tax on farm fuel, amounting to over 60 cents a gallon, in my opinion is a very heavy-handed
tax on the part of the federal Government and is having a counterproductive effect on agricultural production. I would therefore call on the Government and the Cabinet to remove the federal tax on farm fuels immediately.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to you for giving me the floor so that I may express my views on the screening of pornographic films on Pay TV.
First of all, I should like to commend the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) who has threatened to cancel First Choice's broadcasting permit if that company does not reconsider its decision to show pornographic films. I think of myself as being broadminded, yet I think that the company is insulting Canadians when it suggests that people are eager to watch pornographic TV. In my opinion also, CRTC Chairman John Meisel should have prohibited the telecasting of pornographic films by First Choice. I felt singled out when, in his latest report, the CRTC Chairman criticized Members who encourage groups or individuals who broadcast programs received via satellites. If Mr. Meisel can threaten to take legal action against people who do not comply with a given section of the legislation, can he not invoke the same legislation to ban pornographic TV? The CRTC has no qualms about discriminating against remote areas where TV and radio signals are extremely weak, and yet it shows every respect for pornog-raphers. Women, the Canadian bishops, parents and Members of Parliament have come down openly against pornographic films on Pay TV and their opinion should be respected.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has questioned the contribution to society of a childless woman who stays at home. My constituents in Simcoe North have asked me to enlighten the Minister. These women contribute a great deal to

January 21, 1983
society. As one of my constituents so aptly put it, these women give a great deal of time, energy and money to churches, hospitals, and charities. These volunteers respond to a diverse number of community and national needs. In 1979 it is estimated that some $3.5 billion in unpaid volunteer wages was contributed to Canada's economy.
In the Minister's request to have the spousal allowance dropped, she failed to take single parents into consideration. She has suggested a tax increase to single parents who claim the spousal allowance. Seventy-five per cent of the 1980 returns in which a spousal deduction was claimed came from taxpayers earning less than $25,000, which is under the average Canadian family income.
We on this side of the House urge the Minister responsible for the status of women to abandon her suggestion to change the tax system and unfairly discriminate against childless couples and single parents.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, it is a well known fact that the United States is currently carrying out covert action against Nicaragua. For a well documented report I refer Hon. Members to the cover story in the November 8 issue of Newsweek, as well as to The New York Times of December 3, 1982. They detail the aid the United States is giving to supporters of the previous Somoza dictatorship of Nicaragua, based in Honduras, in their attempt to overthrow the legitimate Government of Nicaragua. The action is causing extreme hardships for many innocent people along the border of Honduras and Nicaragua. Farmers and villagers are being caught in the crossfire, and the land, the most fertile in Nicaragua, is being left unused. I can personally attest to these facts having toured the area recently.
[DOT] (mo)
United States support is also having more profound effects on the whole area in that it is destabilizing all of Central America. Not only is Nicaragua being threatened, but Honduras is needlessly being brought into the conflict. Who will be next?
In view of the fact that the United States is sending 1,600 troups to Honduras next month to compete in military exercises within 15 kilometres of the Nicaraguan border, and that the conclusions of the subcommittee on Latin America recommended that the maintenance of stability in the area be the No. 1 priority of the Government of Canada, once again I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to visit Washington and all countries of Central America, to meet with appropriate officials in the countries directly involved in the conflict and also in those countries which are trying to bring about a peaceful solution, in order to expedite an end to this precarious situation.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my intervention relates to the economy of the Atlantic Provinces, and specifically to the shipbuilding industry. I would like very much to join and support my colleague from Saint John in inviting the responsible Ministers, specifically the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), on the subject of the proposed new frigate construction program, to give every consideration to directing that work to the drydock at Saint John, New Brunswick. We know of the efficiency and the excellent work that the employees of that drydock have been able to achieve over the years. In a recent meeting with Local 3, at their initiative this question was brought forward. I am very happy to have this opportunity today to invite all Hon. Members to support us in ensuring that, when this work is finally approved, contracts will be given to the drydock in Saint John, New Brunswick.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) recently announced a new computerized labour force planning system which will chart industrial trends and match workers to jobs. I am pleased to see that the Minister is planning for the future, for a change, but I am also very concerned that little is being done to meet the immediate needs of the 1.5 million Canadians out of work today.
The computerized delivery system for unemployment insurance benefits is in sorry need of improvement. Unemployed Canadians are being forced to wait weeks and weeks for their benefits while their unemployment insurance claims are being processed. Many of these people are forced to go on welfare in order to survive through the interim period between their job loss and the receipt of their first UIC benefit cheque. I am told that when people receive welfare, while waiting for their benefits to be processed, their cards are pulled from the computer and processed by hand, creating yet a longer delay.
I am fully aware that the system was not designed to handle 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. I can fully understand why the Government could not foresee the problem developing, just as it was unable to foresee any of the effects of its disastrous economic policy. Foresight has never been an attribute of the Liberal Government. There is no reason why a person who has already suffered through the loss of his job should be forced to apply for welfare while waiting for his unemployment insurance benefits-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
January 21, 1983


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, 21,000 Japanese Canadians were interned and dispossessed of their property during the Second World War because they were a threat. Well, they were not really a threat; they were Canadians, and their only crime was that they were of Japanese ancestry. This was an historical wrong and we should right it, or else it will linger on and fester, and will be similar in many ways to the Acadian problem-it will go on over the years.
1 suggest two things. One is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should apologize on behalf of the Canadian people. He has done so in Japan, but he should do so in the House of Commons before he retires, if ever. Second, we should have a commission to listen to the evidence and hear the historical record so that history will not be changed. The commission should recommend whether there should be compensation individually or symbolically, and I point out there is an American precedent for this. I hope to bring in a private members' bill on this matter and seek support.
I understand the passions that were here in Canada at the time because my predecessor, Angus Maclnnis, once said it was a tidal wave of public opinion. I understand that, but this is a matter of human dignity, it is a matter of historical wrong, and we have a chance this year to correct it. I urge the Prime Minister and the rest of the House of Commons to consider doing that. It will make us better as a people.


HISTORIC SITES
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, in an effort to preserve Canada's heritage and with a view to avoiding in the future such wanton acts of destruction as was recently perpetrated by Canadian Pacific with the demolition of the West Toronto station, I, and all Canadians to whom history has special significance, urge the Department of Transport to consult with the Canadian Transport Commission, the Heritage Evaluation Review Office, and all other appropriate bodies, in order to seek and to implement ways and means to ensure the protection of all Canadian heritage buildings.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Members of Parliament on all sides of the House have received letters from their respective Revenue Canada taxation offices informing them that taxpayers' refunds will be processed and mailed out much later this year than in previous years. My own letter, from Mr. R. W. Mercer, who is Director of Taxation in Charlottetown, states that this year the very first batch of refunds will not be issued until the middle of May.
By mid-May last year 6.5 million Canadians had already received their income tax refunds. Many had received them as early as March 26. Since hundreds of thousands of Canadians are desperately in need of those refunds this year, just to put bread on the table, how can the Government justify such callous, heartless and insensitive delays in getting these refunds to them?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, since this is a matter for the Department of National Revenue, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Hon. Member's question. I did not see the letter the Hon. Member received, but 1 did read a letter sent by the regional directors to Hon. Members, indicating how we would be analysing tax returns this year and also asking Hon. Members to urge Canadian taxpayers to complete and return their tax returns as soon as possible so that they can be processed as soon as possible. The Hon. Member said that the letter contained information to the effect that no refunds could be sent before the middle of May. I did not see a specific date in the general letter sent by the district directors, but we are going to make every effort to send out refunds as soon as possible. However, I may point out that we will not be able to send the refunds until the legislation to amend the Income Tax Act has been passed by this House.


EFFECT OF SHUTDOWN IN COMPUTER SYSTEM
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue or to the Minister of Finance. Since the Minister of National Revenue has stated that he has not seen the letter to which I have made reference, or one like it, such as has been sent to every single Member of Parliament, including himself, I wish he would only read his mail. Let me tell him this. My own letter from the Charlottetown Taxation District Office states clearly that the income tax refunds will be delayed this year because "Our computers are shut down for approximately two months to enable systems changes, reprogramming and

January 21, 1983
Oral Questions
testing ..." The Government has had 14 months since the last major set of taxation changes in November of 1981. It has had seven months since those changes were modified in June of 1982.
Is this Government so incapable, so incompetent and inept that it cannot move quickly enough to change computers to implement its own legislation?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member could first listen to the answers to his questions instead of losing his temper, and I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition once more to stop grumbling and to listen as well.
I said in my answer to the Hon. Member's question that I read the letter and I also read the letter I myself received. The letter I received and read was a general letter that did not provide a specific date for sending out refunds to taxpayers. That is my first point. Second, I pointed out that we would not be able to send out refunds until the bill in question was passed by Parliament. That is exactly what I said, and the letter asked the Members of this House to urge Canadian taxpayers, as soon as they received their returns, to send them back as soon as possible so that we can prepare the computer programs and get everything ready. Would you please listen instead of getting ready for your next question? We have to prepare the data processing and the cheques, and as soon as the bill is passed by Parliament, send out tax refunds as soon as possible to taxpayers who are eligible for a refund.


Mr. Clark:: Now that is arrogance!


REASON FOR DELAY
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Government has used the failure of the Parliament of Canada to pass Bill C-139 as an excuse for not sending out refunds. But in the absence of the passage of that Bill, it has had no hesitancy in taking money from the taxpayers.
Last year some 15 million Canadians filed income tax returns. In all, the Government had to pay out $5 billion in refunds while taxpayers ended up still owing the Government only about $2 billion after claims were processed. There is a difference historically of about $3 billion-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now in his third speech. I cannot allow that. He must ask his question.


Thomas Michael McMillan: My quick question to the Minister is this: since in all likelihood the Government of Canada will be owing much more money to the taxpayers than the taxpayers will
owe to the Government of Canada after all the income tax returns are processed, why do the Minister and the Government not come clean with Canadian taxpayers and admit that the reason they are delaying sending out income tax refunds to the Canadian people is not legislation like Bill C-139 but the fact that the Government of Canada wants to use the taxpayers' money for as long as possible on a free ride?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of the Canadian people than the Hon. Member, and I am sure that they will draw their own conclusions and show their disapproval of the entirely unacceptable statement the Hon. Member just made.


OBLIGATION TO PAY REFUNDS UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I will address my question to the Minister of Finance. This Minister, as well as the Minister of State for Finance, has said on a number of occasions that the Government cannot pay out refunds until the income tax amendments, Bill C-139, are passed into law. Will the Minister give the legal basis for that statement? Will he admit that the law requires that the Department shall calculate a taxpayer's tax payable, and any refund owing, under the existing tax legislation? Is there not a legal obligation to pay the refunds due to taxpayers without delay under the existing tax legislation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there is one basic rule in Beauchesne's, namely, that we do not ask for legal opinions on the floor of the House. That has been a rule in this House for over 100 years. I am surprised he does not know that.
One thing is certain. As soon as the Income Tax Act amendments before this House are passed, we will make sure that the refunds are sent to the people of the country. This will mean very significant benefits to millions of Canadians. Over 5 million Canadians will be getting refunds. Hundreds or thousands of corporations will also get refunds owing to them. I urge the Opposition to use basic elementary common sense, support the adoption of the income tax amendments as soon as they come forward for consideration, and not do like the last time we tried to get the Bill before the House-hide behind the curtains and prevent the House from having a quorum. That is the kind of deal we have had from the Conservatives in this House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think the Minister's answer speaks for itself. When that Bill comes before the House, we will debate it. We have seen it once. It was brought in 13 months after the budget of the former Minister of Finance.
January 21, 1983


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PAYMENT OF REFUNDS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, is the Minister saying that he is legally unable to pay the refunds, or is he saying that the Government is unable to pay because the computers have not been changed? Or is he saying that the Government is going to play some sleazy political game here, using the threat of refund delays to put pressure on the Opposition to give speedy passage to this Bill in order to save further embarrassment to the previous Minister of Finance, to get the law passed and avoid further embarrassment over the most widely discredited budget which this country has ever seen?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if there is any sleaziness it has been and is still on that side of the House among the Conservative Party.
The income tax amendments and proposals in question have been before a parliamentary Committee for over a month over the course of the summer. They have had hearings on them. They have had a report on them. The Government has taken into account the recommendations of the Committee, has made amendments, and has come up with a Bill which represents the results of consultations with outside people over months, and consultations and participation of this Parliament.
The Opposition, as well as Members of Parliament on this side, have made a great contribution to the improvement of the Bill. The Bill has been introduced, and the first time the Leader of the House on this side asked that the Bill be debated, what we saw was the Conservatives running out of the House in order to prevent a quorum from being established, and in order to avoid debating this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: It is there for the record. They are arguing to bring this Bill back, and I hope the Conservatives will come to their senses and accept passage of this Bill soon-


Charles Joseph Clark: Why are you breaking the law?


Marc Lalonde: -so that the people of Canada will be able to receive the refunds to which they are entitled. That is the issue.


INDUSTRY AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister of Canada who will be well aware from his own statistics that the unemployment rate in the City of Kamloops has now reached the level of 27.4 per cent. It is the highest in Canada. The human tragedy and suffering which are going on in that community are something to behold. Emergency food banks have had to be set up, and emergency employment centres and crisis centres, to meet the devastation occurring in that community.
I have approached the Minister of Employment for some special consideration, for naught. I have approached the
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance; no response there. I have approached the Minister responsible for economic development; nothing there. I have approached the Minister of Energy; nothing there. The last Minister, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, sent me a note saying communities experiencing severe economic difficulties are monitored for ILAP designation on an ongoing basis. How bad must it get, Prime Minister? The unemployment rate is at 27.4 per cent, the highest in Canada. Communities have been designated with half that percentage of unemployment. Tell the people of Kamloops how bad it must get before your Government gives a designation under ILAP?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, during the month of December the Committee of Ministers responsible for ILAP had several meetings. We designated the communities of Port Alberni, B.C., and Sudbury, Ontario. At that particular time, with the information we had at our disposal on the situation, those two communities, particularly with respect to long-term structural problems, were in far greater need than the Hon. Member's community. There have been over 1,000 requests, Madam Speaker, with respect to communities seeking ILAP designation. Potential ILAP designation is an ongoing process by a Cabinet Committee of Ministers.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER VISIT KAMLOOPS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister, in response to his return, we are talking about a community with the highest unemployment figures in Canada for some weeks, and with a refinery which is slated to close down in the weeks ahead, which will even worsen the situation.
My question again is directed to the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister has shown concern for conditions in Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries. He is sensitive about their concerns. He is concerned about how Canada can assist those countries develop. Would he be prepared to join with me this weekend, or as soon as possible, to come to Kamloops and talk to the people of this country to find out what their problems are, and ways and means whereby his Government can resolve their problems? Come and talk to the people of Canada, Mr. Prime Minister.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure the Hon. Member is stating the reality when he says that my concern was to create jobs in those countries. My concern is to create jobs in Canada by making exchanges and commercial transactions with the fastest growing area in the Pacific. That was why I went to those countries. Hopefully it will help British Columbia because

January 21, 1983
Oral Questions
many British Columbia businessmen were on these trips and they encouraged me to proceed.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is very difficult for me to remain calm when I hear responses as vague and convoluted as that.
When the Prime Minister toured Kamloops in 1980 he said to the people of Kamloops and the people of Canada that every Canadian citizen has a right to a job. Was the Prime Minister of Canada lying, or was he demonstrating today that he does not give a damn about the people of Canada? And should they be giving him the same salute he gave the people in Salmon Arm?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course they are free to act as they want; 1 hope it will be a little more rational than the Hon. Member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: How did you behave with them in Salmon Arm? You gave them this finger.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to ask a supplementary I will-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Invite him outside, Pierre.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. MARTIN MALVY, VICEPRESIDENT, AND MR. CHRISTIAN LAURISSERGUES, DEPUTE QUESTEUR, OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRANCE
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of Mr. Martin Malvy, Vice-President of the French National Assembly, and Mr. Christian Laurissergues, depute questeur, accompanied by a delegation of parliamentarians.


THE HANDICAPPED AND THE DISABLED
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since there are many communities throughout Canada which have disabled people, and there are people in those areas who would like to form voluntary organizations to assist these unfortunate people, is her Department providing any assistance, physical or financial, to assist in the 'donation of such
organizations, since a check with some of the officials in her Department has produced negative results?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, we give direct and material assistance as well as financial contributions. Perhaps the answer in this particular case was negative if it happened to be the end of the year and our budget was exhausted. Perhaps the Hon. Member-

Perhaps the Hon. Member should give me the specifics of the dossier and I will look into it. It may well be that this year's budget is exhausted and we did not have enough money.

However, we shall do our best, and I would like to make it clear to all Hon. Members that we give what we can, which is never enough, but just the same, the help is there for organizations for the disabled.


ROLE OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, has the Minister given consideration to working out an arrangement with the provincial Governments whereby some financial assistance might be forthcoming from them at least to provide seed money for these voluntary organizations?


Monique Bégin: The Government of the Province of Saskatchewan is a Conservative government, if I remember correctly, the same party as the one to which the Hon. Member belongs. Perhaps he could speak to them directly. In fact, the Constitution clearly states that this is the direct responsibility of the provinces. We provide additional assistance. In fact, if we want to help experimental projects, we often have to do it in a roundabout way when we provide funds for direct delivery of services. As a result, it is really very difficult for me to do more than what the provinces should be doing under to the Constitution. If the Hon. Member could give me some specific cases, I would be happy to write directly to my counterpart in Saskatchewan.


STANDARDS COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I was wondering if I should turn around and ask the Minister of Justice this question, but my question is actually directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
January 21, 1983

The Minister will know that the Standards Council of Canada made a nation-wide candidate search at considerable public expense for a new executive director. Last June the Council made a unanimous recommendation that Mr. John Dumbrille, a certified bilingual engineer with extensive background in standards, be appointed by Cabinet. Does the Minister also remember that just before Christmas, on December 23, the Cabinet passed a fast Order in Council naming instead Mr. John Woods, who just happens to be a former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, as the Standards Council executive director?
I want to know from the Minister whether Mr. Woods was on the short list, or even on the original long list of applicants, and why no prior notice was given to this prestigious body which prides itself on being independent of political interference, and why its unanimous recommendation was overturned?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, who has been very active on the urea-formaldehyde issue, will understand that it is very important to have people with good contacts in the business world, people who understand why standards are important and how they should be written here in Canada to prevent any future occurrences of the kind experienced by some owners of homes insulated with UFFI. Consequently, Madam Speaker, the Standards Council will have an executive director who has my full confidence, who is very competent and will do a very good job, that I am sure of.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, the question might well be asked: what does a Liberal know about standards?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COUNCIL GUIDELINES
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The fact remains, Madam Speaker, that members of the Standards Council are visibly upset, hurt, and embarrassed by the overturning of their unanimous decision last June to have Mr. Dumbrille as executive director, and a Liberal hack substituted without prior notification.
Given the fact that Section 14(1) of the Standards Council of Canada Act stipulates that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Standards Council, may appoint its executive director, what guidelines should members of the Standards Council now follow in order to avoid the Minister's passion for patronage?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I met with members of the executive of the Standards Council. We discussed the matter, and I think the Hon. Member's information is inaccurate.

Oral Questions


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On December 8, 1982, in response to questions by myself and the Leader of my Party regarding FIRA, he said, and I quote:
We are not weakening FIRA. We are making it more efficient.
We now find there is growing evidence to the contrary. I checked the published figures of FIRA itself and I find the number of applications allowed under the new Minister in charge of FIRA are the highest in the nine-year history of the Agency. Under the present Minister over 95 per cent of applications are allowed; under the previous Minister it was about 87 per cent; under the Tories it was 92 per cent; Jack Horner, 93 per cent.
In light of that kind of evidence I wonder if the Prime Minister will admit that the intention of the Government is really to weaken FIRA, and can he explain to the country why he is doing this at a time of high unemployment in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the short answer is no. An explanation of that is that at this time the Hon. Member should not be complaining that there is more investment, from whatever source, in Canada, because that is the source of jobs in Canada.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, we are talking here about takeovers. The number of applications before FIRA has gone up this year by some 6 per cent, yet the number of disallowances has gone down to an all-time historic low. The Prime Minister made a promise in the 1980 campaign to strengthen FIRA, and he put that in the Throne Speech in April, 1980, as well.
I ask the Prime Minister why is the Foreign Investment Review Agency under the present Minister now approving over 95 per cent of applications received? Why is it turning down only just over 4 per cent, which is an historic low for that Agency? Why that abrupt change in policy since Herb Gray was the Minister four months ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that the basic guideline of FIRA, in one sentence, is that investments be of significant benefit to Canada. I would think that almost everyone in the House would believe that investment would create jobs, would prevent Canadian firms from going under by creating work for the work force, and would be very welcome at this time. If the
22076

January 21, 1983
Oral Questions
Minister is proceeding in that way at a time of high unemployment, I suggest that the Hon. Member should get together with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap who was somewhat emotional about high unemployment. I think the Hon. Member should realize that high unemployment is a problem everywhere.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Further to questions put to him earlier this week, may I ask the Minister if he has had an opportunity to have discussions with his legal advisers and, possibly, the Minister of Communications, in order to try to justify breaking the law by selling land at Mirabel.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member had used the spare time he has had since the last question, to check the law. I have written a letter to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition based on the legal advice of the legal officers in my Department.
I will say to the Hon. Member that the properties in question were expropriated pursuant to the former Expropriation Act, in which there was no requirement to offer expropriated land to the former owners in the event of a resale by the Crown.


Charles Joseph Clark: When was it changed?


Roméo LeBlanc: Perhaps if the Right Hon. Member stopped interrupting and listened, he might learn something.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell the whole truth.


Roméo LeBlanc: Section 24 of the Act was similar in nature to Section 19 of the present Act. It provided that where no compensation money had been paid and the land was abandoned by the Crown, it be vested in the person from whom it had been taken.
In the case of the six properties that we are talking about, the fact is that full compensation had been paid to the expropriated parties and the Crown has not abandoned the land.
I hope the Right Hon. Member bothers to read the excellent letter I will be sending him right away.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, the Minister is referring to a previous Act. There is one rule for Ontario and one rule for the Province of Quebec, and the people of Mirabel are being ill-treated.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the Minister that I am talking about Section 19 of the present Act, not Section 18, or Section 24 of the previous Act. I would like the Minister to come clean and provide for a complete review and investigation of this matter. He will find out that he has broken the law in selling these 180 properties.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member will do what I have done, which is to examine this matter-the legal position should be examined-and then he could pose questions accordingly.
If I have broken the law, obviously I will not hesitate to take the position that I should. The legal advisers in my Department have very carefully drafted an answer for the Right Hon. Member, and this should be part of the record.


QUERY RESPECTING OFFER TO ORIGINAL OWNERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I return to a question the Minister has not yet answered, at least in the House. Did the Government of Canada offer the first chance to purchase those six Mirabel lands, to the original owners?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam
Speaker, the decision has been made-


Mr. Nielsen:: Answer yes or no.


Roméo LeBlanc: -that the houses and the land would be offered to those who had become the tenants. If the Hon. Member's position were followed logically, it would simply mean that we would go through all the pains of a second expropriation. If that is what he advocates, he had better say so publicly.


Charles Joseph Clark: What I advocate, Madam Speaker, is that the Government of Canada follow the law. It has broken the law on tax refunds; it has broken the law on family allowances; it has broken the law on the Standards Council appointment, and it has broken the law with respect to the expropriation at Mirabel. This is a Jesse James Government that has no respect for the law of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TREATMENT OF ORIGINAL OWNERS AT MIRABEL AND PICKERING
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that the expropriations at Pickering and Mirabel occurred under the old Act.


Mr. Fox:: Not true.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister also knows that the return of land at Pickering involved a first offer to the original owners. The
January 21, 1983

return of land at Mirabel did not involve a first offer to the original owners.
Can the Minister tell us why there was a double standard? Why was one law followed in Pickering and a different interpretation of the law followed in Mirabel? Why is the Minister breaking the law in Mirabel?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I get the impression that we are listening to a man who is frustrated because he did not get through law school. He keeps interrupting us with claims that we have broken the law. I must say I think that the opinions of the legal advisers of the Department of Justice and the advisers of my own Department of Public Works are more reliable in this respect than the questions put by the Right Hon. Member.


INCOME TAX
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on this question of respect for the law I wonder if the Minister of Finance would tell us whether he has received an opinion-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not a supplementary question.


Charles Joseph Clark: It has to do with the Prime Minister's practice of consistently breaking the law. He does not answer questions in the House of Commons and he should not lecture those of us who do ask them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Read the law. Try again.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Minister of Finance whether he has received an opinion from the Department of Justice which would permit the Government to delay tax refunds that are required by law. Does he have such an opinion from the Department of Justice?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can only feel sorry that the Leader of the Opposition could never finish his law studies and did not get a law degree. He could have avoided a lot of questions in the House.
I do not have a written opinion but I have an excellent team of legal advisers from the Department of Justice in the Department of Finance. Like the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance acts upon the advice of the legal officers of the Crown who are responsible to and who are part of the Department of Justice. This is the way things are being done in the Parliament of Canada and by the Government of Canada. Whether one has a law degree or not, one follows the law that has been passed by Parliament. This is the way things are.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would not want the Minister to take this personally, but a lot of crooks have law degrees.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I see some lawyers on the other side raising their hands. Perhaps they should be identified.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of the pork barrel for New Brunswick-whichever Minister wants to answer.
Will the Government place upon the Table of the House of Commons the legal advice on which the Minister of Finance is refusing to pay tax refunds which the law requires him to pay; lay upon the Table the legal opinion by which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is refusing to pay family allowance recipients the amount of money required by law, and lay upon the Table the legal opinion which justifies the Minister of Public Works in refusing to follow Section 19 of the Expropriation Act in relation to Mirabel lands? Instead of claiming that it has a legal opinion and then not having the courage to table that opinion, will the Government table those opinions in Parliament?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, things must be looking even worse than we thought for the Winnipeg weekend.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Hearing the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about lawyers, and so many of his colleagues, including the Opposition House Leader who is a good lawyer, being attacked with such a broad brush, I suspect that there really are serious problems for the Leader of the Opposition. Not only does the Leader of the Opposition not know the law but, unfortunately, he does not even appear to know the rules of this House. Again, I refer him to Beauchesne. In Beau-chesne it is stated quite specifically that the Government cannot table legal opinions.


Charles Joseph Clark: You have done it.


Marc Lalonde: It is not a question of courage, it is a question of respect for the House, about which the Leader of the Opposition does not even seem to know about. I invite him to read Beauchesne between now and next weekend and maybe it will be helpful if he succeeds next weekend, when he comes back to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 21, 1983
22078____________________________________
Oral Questions


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, perhaps if the Tories had supported us yesterday, they would have got the legal opinion they are now seeking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: For oil companies, anything; for senior citizens, nothing!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I want to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question, if I may. Since 1980 we have had a litany of broken promises from Chrysler with regard to commitments that it was prepared to make to the Canadian Government in return for loans and loan guarantees.


Charles Joseph Clark: He will now ask his question and then leave the House.


Ian Deans: We have seen the engine plants which were promised, disappear. The company has not yet proceeded with the front-wheel drive van plant, and there are serious questions about whether it will proceed. There are now serious considerations by Chrysler about moving the rear-wheel-drive vehicles to the United States. Is the Government prepared to tell the people of Canada what commitment we can get from Chrysler that it will keep, and how many jobs is this company prepared to guarantee for Canadians?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, first the Hon. Member should get his facts straight. There is no doubt whatever about Chrysler proceeding with their van wagon project, the T-115. That is on schedule. As a matter of fact that is one of the reasons why Chrysler has to find a new location for the rear-wheel-drive operation. Also, it was the intention since 1981 to close the rear-wheel-drive operation in the Chrysler plant in Windsor. Chrysler has since found that sales were better than anticipated and now the company is planning to continue the production of the rear-wheel-drive vehicles, and we are trying to encourage Chrysler to keep that operation here in Canada. With all due respect, I think the Hon. Member should get his facts straight before asking his question.


Mr. Fisher:: Stop worrying about the Tories and start worrying about the facts.


BREAKING OF COMMITMENTS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that I also met with the President of Chrysler, Mr. Lander, when he was the President and I heard the commitments. The Minister perhaps did not because he was not the Minister at the time. The commitments were to build a V-6
plant in Canada. It has not been built. The commitment was then to build a diesel plant. That has not been built.


Mr. Epp:: Nobody is buying.


Ian Deans: In the process the company has closed the spring plant, and in the process the company has not gone ahead with its commitment on schedule to build a front-wheel-drive van plant and the company is going to move the rear-wheel plant. How many jobs are we going to get in return for the commitments made by the Government? Is the Minister prepared to transfer the $50 million in loan guarantees which Chrysler is now asking to that particular operation? How do we know the company will live up to these commitments which it is now proceeding to make to us?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I have no doubt about the sincerity of the Hon. Member in trying to protect the autoworkers'jobs.


Mr. Kempling:: I do.


Edward C. Lumley: We obviously share the same goal. But again I want to ensure that the Hon. Member knows exactly what he is talking about in terms of the facts. The company is going ahead with the T-l 15 operation, the van wagon plant project, as originally scheduled. Chrysler has not yet shut down the spring plant. All the company has done is announce that it is going to shut down the plant in July. The diesel engine project was, in essence, a change in the agreement for the K car operation, which the Hon. Member has not even mentioned. The company is considering Canada. Although there was no commitment by the company to continue the production of rear-wheel-drive operations in Canada, they are giving consideration to this project.


Ian Deans: Do you believe the Chrysler spokesmen?


Edward C. Lumley: Also, Chrysler has to close the rear-wheel-drive operation if it is going to go ahead with the van wagon. I know the Hon. Member's sincerity in terms of protecting these jobs, but I want to pose a question to him.


Erik Nielsen: That's a neat switch.


Edward C. Lumley: If, all of a sudden, we should decide not to continue or to go ahead with the Government guarantees, perhaps all 11,000 jobs at Chrysler Canada would be in jeopardy. Is that what the Hon. Member is suggesting we do?


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister confirm that he agrees with his colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the status of women, that the $1,000
January 21, 1983

child care expense deduction is too low in that it does not reflect current costs of child care? Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will be giving this matter due consideration in the formulation of his next budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have been receiving a number of representations on this subject and, as well, on other subjects during the course of the consultations I have had, and also in discussions I have had with my colleagues in caucus. Obviously, I am giving serious consideration to all the representations that are being made. Clearly, I will not be able to accede to all the representations that have been made; many are even contradictory. But this is one to which I will certainly give very serious consideration.


REQUEST FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, could the Minister confirm to the House and to the women of Canada that, when he is considering an increase in the child care expense deduction, he will do it separately and apart from any other tax matters, such as the spousal deduction?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, when preparing the budget, the Minister of Finance has to look at all aspects. We cannot separate a single issue from the rest of the budget. As far as the particular point raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, I may remind him that I have received no representations regarding the spousal deduction, and that I have no intention of addressing this issue in particular when the next budget is brought down. The matter is not under consideration at the present time.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with questions I have asked the Minister earlier regarding the Manitoba Government's employees' payroll tax, the 1.5 per cent tax which the NDP Government imposed on all employers before jobs could be created in Manitoba. Has a decision been made? 1 am not trying to ask for a legal opinion because I am finding out the Minister does not give them.


Erik Nielsen: When he does, they are wrong.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Has the Government made a decision, on the basis of legal opinion, on whether or not a level of government such as a provincial government, in fact can tax another level of government, namely, the federal Government?
Petitions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it does not seem from the preliminary examination we have made that there would be anything illegal about a provincial government proceeding in that way. As I say, that is on the basis of a preliminary examination. However, a discussion did arise in my last meeting with provincial Ministers of Finance concerning the question that some provinces-Manitoba is one, and Quebec is another one-have been resorting to this kind of taxation which, in effect, ended up reducing the federal tax revenues. Obviously this was a matter of concern in that when the federal Government increases its taxes generally, especially income taxes, Provinces benefit; from this, when Provinces resort to this kind of taxation, they end up reducing federal Government revenues. Certainly this was likely to give rise to serious problems down the line between the federal Government and the Provinces if such a practice were to be continued or expanded. This is a matter that I hope the provincial Ministers of Finance will want to examine seriously in a spirit of continuing co-operation.


EFFECT ON FEDERAL SALARIES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Manitoba Government is now facing deficits, estimated well in excess of half a billion dollars for this fiscal year, having tragic results not only in terms of credit rating but also in job-creation, has the federal Government decided to pay the Manitoba payroll tax on federal salaries earned in Manitoba?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this matter has been raised, and I apologize to the Hon. Member for not being in a position to give him the answer today. I remember having examined this issue and having discussions about it, but I cannot remember exactly what the conclusion was at that time. If the Hon. Member wishes, 1 will be very happy to give him the answer on Monday. I would like to check my files with respect to what exactly the situation was.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, January 20, 1983, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

January 21, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) requested that we consider a request from the Conservative Party not to sit on Friday next. I promised that I would respond to that request this morning. In making my response, I am assuming that if a similar situation were to arise affecting any Party in the House, that same concession would be granted.
Assuming that, we are then quite prepared to give unanimous consent not to sit on Friday next.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the assumption outlined by the Acting House Leader for the NDP (Mr. Deans) is entirely correct.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, we usually make decisions on such requests as the events in question arise. Therefore, we cannot make any commitment in this respect, if we are to observe parliamentary practice and our customary procedure. As far as this convention is concerned, we were the first to point out yesterday that we were willing to meet the request made by the Progressive Conservative Party. Consequently, if there is unanimous consent, the House will not be sitting next Friday. That does not mean to say that the same decision must apply to future conventions, but I can assure my Hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party that we are always very receptive, and that our decision will be made at the appropriate time, as soon as his request is received.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal that the House should not sit next Friday?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,231, 4,252, 4,465, 4,481, 4,482, 4,483, 4,484, 4,485, 4,486, 4,489 and 4,532.


Mr. Fretz: 1.	(a) On what date was the 1956 Trade Agreement between the U.S.S.R. and Canada extended and for how long (b) what areas of trade does the Agreement
cover (c) does the Agreement permit the transfer of science and technology and, if so (i) in what fields or areas (ii) under what conditions or restrictions and is the transfer free of charge, barter or payments?
2.	(a) What fields or areas does the Agreement on Economic, Industrial, Scientific and Technical Co-operation of 1976 cover (b) was the Agreement extended?
3.	On what date does the Friendship Agreement of 1971 expire and are there discussions talcing place to extend it?
4.	Were projects financed by the Export Development Corporation or another Department or Development Agency to export U.S.S.R. goods or services to Canada and other countries and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) which other countries were involved?
5.	Did the Government or any departmental officials engage in any discussions or exchanges with the U.S.S.R. on building a Lada automobile plant in Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) A protocol to renew the 1956 Trade Agreement between Canada and the U.S.S.R. was signed on January 21, 1982. The extension of the Agreement is for a period of five years (April 19, 1981 to April 18, 1986).
(b)	The Agreement provides Canada with a basic juridical and commercial framework which is necessary to manage our trade relations with the U.S.S.R. The most important feature of the 1956 Agreement was the exchange of Most-Favorite Nation treatment.
(c)	The 1956 Agreement does not contain any reference to transfers of science and technology.
2.	(a) The 1976 Long-term Agreement to facilitate Economic, Industrial, Scientific and Technical co-operation seeks expansion and diversification of trade in goods and services and of scientific and industrial co-operation in fields of common interest; joint efforts in the implementation of projects and of industrial co-operation between Canadian firms and Soviet enterprises; joint efforts in the construction and supply of equipment and services for industrial facilities in third countries.
(b) The Agreement was done on July 14, 1976, and is valid for a period of ten years.
3.	The Government of Canada does not have a Friendship Agreement with the U.S.S.R. On May 19, 1971 the Governments of Canada and the Soviet Union signed a Protocol on Consultations which provides a framework for the development of a dialogue with the U.S.S.R. on issues of mutual interest or international importance. The Protocol has no expiry date. The Protocol on Consultations is a very different intergovernmental mechanism with a different purpose than the largely symbolic Treaties of Friendship which the Soviet Government has negotiated for political reasons with ideologically like-minded developing countries. For example, unlike some standard Soviet Friendship Agreements with other countries, the Protocol on Consultations makes no reference to


iv

n

consultation on measures to ensure the security, independence and territorial integrity of the two signatory states.
4.	No. The Corporation provides export credits financing to foreign borrowers to facilitate the sale of Canadian goods and services only.
5.	No. While Canadian Government officials are aware of discussions having taken place between Lada Cars of Canada Inc. and the Soviets concerning assembly by the NIVA four wheel drive utility vehicles in Canada, Canadian government officials have not been part of these discussions.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The Department of External Affairs does have written Rules or Regulations governing the Code or standard of behaviour for employees of the Department. These are embodied in a Code of Conduct and the Code is available to the public.
2.	On the basis of data available, the following sanctions were imposed in the five years preceding April 1, 1982.
Written Reprimands	Suspensions	Discharges1977	None	1	None1978	3	None	None1979	3	2	None1980	13	5	None1981	10	5	None
To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing names.


Mr. Malone: 1.	What is the dollar value of the present assets of Petro-Canada?
2.	What is the dollar value of the present liabilities of Petro-Canada?
3.	What is the total (a) number of persons working (b) annual advertising budget for Petro-Canada?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1 and 2. The dollar value established in Petro-Canada's Annual Report is the only measure of the assets and liabilities of the Corporation.
Order Paper Questions
Consolidated Balance Sheet December 31, 1981
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and short-term deposits Accounts receivable Inventories
Deposits and prepaid expenses Investments
Property, Plant and Equipment Deferred charges Deferred Interest
Liabilities Current Liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Income taxes payable
Portion of long-term debt due within one year
Long-Term Debt Revolving Term Loan
Advances on Future Natural Gas Deliveries Deferred Income Taxes Minority Interest in Subsidiary Preferred Shares Issued by a Subsidiary Convertible Notes
Shareholders Equity
Capital
Preferred shares Common Shares
Retained Earnings
Commitments and Contingencies
3.	(a) On July 30, 1982, Petro-Canada had 6,025 full-time employees, (b) Petro-Canada's 1982 advertising budget including all aspects of production, research and media expenses is $6,325,000.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	On what date are Public Service employee pension contributions for current service credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA), the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (SRBA)?
2.	Do employee contributions to the CFSA. PSSA. RCMPSA and the SRBA earn interest between the dates they are deducted from employee pay cheques and the dates they are credited to these Accounts and, if not, for what reason?
3.	On what date are the government's matching or corresponding pension contributions for current service credited to the CFSA, PSSA, RCMPSA and SRBA?
4.	What additional amounts would have to be included in the 1982-83 Estimates and credited to the CFSA, PSSA, RCMPSA and SRBA if the government's contribution for current service in respect of 1982-83 service were
($ thousands)


[Stage Direction]
(S thousands)
426 523 10 006 73 135 509 664
211 042 566 829 60 896 910 066 787 450 I 464 375 461 767
864 772 600 000 1 464 772
175 672
1 640 444
6 612 533
[Stage Direction]
January 21, 1983
Order Paper Questions
credited to these Accounts at the same time as those of Public Service employees?
Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The pension contributions of public servants and members of the RCMP are credited to the PSSA, the RCMPSA and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account at the same time they are deducted from their pay. The pension contributions of members of the Armed Forces are credited to the CFSA and the SRBA in the month during which they are deducted.
2.	Pursuant to regulations made under the authority of the relevant pension acts, interest is credited to the CFSA, PSSA and RCMPSA at the end of each quarter based on the account balance at the end of the previous quarter. Interest is credited to the SRBA at the end of each quarter based on the minimum monthly balance in the account in that quarter.
3.	In accordance with the PSSA, the government matches employee contributions a year in arrears. For example, an amount matching the employee contributions for Fiscal year 1981-82 was credited to the PSS Account in the first quarter of fiscal year 1982-83. The government credits an appropriate amount each quarter to the CFSA and RCMPSA, based on employee contributions made in the previous quarter. Employee contributions to the SRBA are matched by the government on a current basis.
4.	PSSA-approximately $35 million.
CFSA-approximately $5.2 million.
RCMPSA-approximately $1.3 million.
SRBA-see Part 3 above.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Does the legislation governing the operation of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA), the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) require the Government to make annual actuarial liability adjustments to these Accounts to meet the cost of the benefits payable from these Accounts as a result of salary revisions occurring in the year and, if so, is the Government required to underwrite the financing of these actuarial liability adjustments?
2.	Flow were the annual actuarial liability adjustments, referred to in Part 1, determined before and after the laying before Parliament of the 1975 CFSA, the 1977 PSSA and the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial reports?
3.	In the years since the 1975 CFSA, the 1977 PSSA and the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial reports have taken effect, by what amounts, for each Account and year, have the actuarial liability adjustments to these Accounts been reduced as a result of these actuarial reports?


Peter Joseph Lang: 1. Yes. The liability adjustments are amortized over five years in equal instalments. The cost of the amortization is met by the Government, but in meeting the cost the Government can use any interest earnings of the pension accounts over 6.5 per cent per annum.
2.	Prior to the valuations as at December 31, 1975 for the CFSA, December 31 1977 for the PSSA and December 31,
1974 for the RCMPSA, the actuarial valuation assumptions used did not provide for general economic, as opposed to promotional, salary increases. Consequently, the actuarial liability adjustments to these accounts as a result of general economic salary increases were calculated with reference to the total of such increases granted each year. The actuarial liability adjustments were determined by multiplying the amounts of the general economic salary increases granted during each year by the appropriate actuarially determined factors.
The actuarial valuation assumptions used for the purposes of the actuarial reports for the CFSA as at December 31, 1975, the PSSA as at December 31, 1977, and the RCMPSA as at December 31, 1974, include a provision for general economic salary increases at the rate of 5.5 per cent per annum. Consequently, the actuarial liability adjustments that were calculated for the years subsequent to the laying before Parliament of the said actuarial reports were calculated with reference to general economic salary increases in excess of 5.5 per cent per annum. These excess salary increases were multiplied by the appropriate factors specified in the applicable actuarial reports to obtain the actuarial liability adjustments required on account of the general economic salary increases granted in each year.
3.	Because the actuarial valuation assumptions upon which the 1975 CFSA, the 1977 PSSA and the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial reports are based include a provision for general economic salary increases at the rate of 5.2 per cent per annum, the actuarial liability adjustments on account of the general economic salary increases granted during the periods following the laying before Parliament of the most recent actuarial reports were calculated with reference to such increases in excess of 5.2 per cent per annum and were as shown in table 1.
Table 1
Fiscal Year	Actuarial Adjustments on accounts of general economic
salary increases calculated on the basis of the most recent actuarial reports
CFSA	PSSA (millions)	RCMPSA1978-79	N/A	N/A	0.91979-80	N/A	N/A	13.61980-81	252.4*	568.2**	38.31981-82	453.6	951.4	51.3
* This amount, actually credited, was determined on the basis of assumptions used in previous reports because the most recent report was not laid before Parliament until October 29, 1980.
** This amount was calculated on the assumption that the credit would be made on June 30, 1981.
If the actuarial valuation assumptions had not included a provision for general economic salary increases of 5.2 per cent per annum the actuarial liability adjustments for those years would have been calculated with reference to total increases and would have been as shown in table 2.
January 21, 1983

Table 2
Fiscal Year	Actuarial Adjustments	on account of general	economic
	salary increases calculated on the assumption that there is no provision for such increases in the valuation bases		
CFSA	PSSA (millions)	RCMPSA1978-79	N/A	N/A	24.91979-80	N/A	N/A	42.31980-81	252.4*	799.0	66.61981-82	702.9	1,435.8 Table 3	92.4Fiscal Year	Amounts by which the Actuarial Adjustments Table 2 exceed those shown in Table 1	shown inCFSA	PSSA (millions)	RCMPSA1978-79	N/A	N/A	24.01979-80	N/A	N/A	28.71980-81	0	230.8	28.31981-82	249.3	484.4	41.1
It should be noted that the actuarial valuation assumptions upon which the 1975 CFSA, the 1977 PSSA and the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial reports are based provide for interest on the funds at the rate of 6.5 per cent per annum. The valuation reports that preceded the above mentioned reports provided for interest on the funds to be credited at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. Thus, while the actuarial liability adjustments based on the assumptions used in the most recent actuarial reports are smaller than the actuarial liability adjustments that would have been necessary had there been no change in the economic assumptions, the interest which must be credited to the accounts is higher.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Does the December 31, 1977 actuarial report on the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) assume that CPP contributors will, through salary increases, promotions and other increases, experience an average long-term increase in their real earnings of 2 per cent per annum, that is two percentage points above the assumed rate of inflation?
2.	Does the December 31. 1977 actuarial report on the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) assume that PSSA contributors will, through salary revisions and promotions, experience an average long-term increase in their real salaries that is 75 per cent a year higher than that of Canadians contributing to the CPP and does the 1977 PSSA actuarial report assume that public servants through salary revisions and promotions will, on average, receive annual increases in their salaries of three and one-half percentage points above the implicitly assumed rate of inflation and. if not, what is the annual real rate of salary increases that the 1977 PSSA actuarial report assumes will be received by public servants though salary revisions and promotions?
3.	What was the average annual percentage increase in real salaries that was received by PSSA contributors as a result of salary revisions and promotions for each of the past ten fiscal years?
4.	Were representatives of PSSA contributors and pensioners consulted on the decision taken with respect to the 1977 PSSA actuarial report to base the future financing of the PSSA on the assumption that public servants in future would receive substantially higher increases in their real salaries than Canadians in general who contribute to the CPP and, if not, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
5.	Does financing the PSSA on the assumption that PSSA contributors will, over the long term, receive substantially larger increases in their real salaries than CPP contributors, together with the other assumptions and experiences described in the 1977 PSSA actuarial report, create a deficit of $61.5 million in the valuation balance sheet of the PSSA as at December 31, 1977?
6.	(a) What amount did the Minister of Finance determine should be credited to the PSSA pursuant to Section 34(3) of the Public Service Superannuation Act following the laying before Parliament of the December 31, 1977 actuarial report on the PSSA (b) was the amount $61.5 million and, if not, how was it determined?
7.	What would be the size of the actuarial surplus of the PSSA as at December 31, 1977 if the 1977 report had assumed that public servants through salary revisions and promotions would receive the same real salary increases as Canadians contributing to the CPP, which was 2 per cent per annum, and if the 1977 report remained unchanged in all other respects?


Peter Joseph Lang: 1. No. Earnings increases in excess of the rate of inflation might be considered to be attributable to two sources: (a) general economic increases due to increased productivity, general labour market conditions or other factors which affect all persons more or less equally; and (b) career-specific increases which depend much more heavily on individual circumstances.
In the main estimates of Canada Pension Plan Statutory Actuarial Report No. 6 as at December 31, 1977, it was assumed that economic increases in earnings would be 2 per cent per annum for 1983 and subsequent years.
It was also assumed, implicitly but not explicitly, that there would be substantial promotional increases at the young ages, diminishing and becoming negative at the older ages, but cumulatively positive over the lifetime of an individual. The increases were based on the earnings statistics of CPP contributors in 1975 which exhibited the following average earnings:
Age Group	Males	Females18-19	3,580	2,54720-24	6,626	4,75225-29	10,119	5,93830-34	12,576	5,84635-39	13,751	5,92140-44	14,310	6,07445-49	14,323	6,19050-54	13,782	6,20255-59	12,758	6,15460-64	10,994	5,91165-69	7,068	4,107addition to the	above economic	and promotional
increases, it was also assumed that the gap between male and female average earnings would narrow by 1 per cent each year, which implies, of course, that male earnings increases in excess of the rate of inflation were assumed to be somewhat less, and female earnings increases somewhat more, than those that would follow from the above described economic and promotional increases.
2.	No, it was not assumed in the 1977 Actuarial Report on the PSSA that PSSA contributors would experience real salary increases 75 per cent higher than Canadians contributing to the CPP. The 1977 PSSA Actuarial Report does not assume real salary increases of three and one-half percentage

January 21, 1983
Order Paper Questions
points above the implicitly assumed rate of inflation. Real economic salary increases of 2.5 per cent were assumed. However, when these increases are combined with assumed promotional salary increases, it is impossible to calculate a single meaningful average figure, since the average compound rate depends on the range of ages being considered as indicated by the following examples:
Average Compound Annual Real Salary Increases Assumed in 1977 PSSA Actuarial Report
Age Range	Male	Female50-65	2.75	2.8040-65	2.89	3.1630-65	3.29	3.7245-60	2.87	3.0735-60	3.09	3.5725-60	3.92	4.27
The promotional salary scales used for purposes of the PSSA are based on the pattern of PSSA contributors; they are not as high as those used for CPP contributors at the young ages but higher at the older ages. The two scales are simply not comparable. For example, the earnings pattern of CPP contributors reflects the abnormally high "promotional" increases obtained by employees who move from one employer to another precisely for the purpose of increasing their earnings; on the other hand, they reflect the earnings of older employees whose earnings may substantially decrease but some of whom may have retired on pension from one job while continuing full or part-time work with another employer to augment their income. The substantial decreases in average earnings exhibited by the relatively older CPP contributors would not be representative of PSSA contributors nor of members of many other employer pension plans.
The assumption that the general level of salaries of PSSA contributors would increase at 2'h per cent net of inflation (actually 2.427 per cent) was based on the statistical data for Canadian wages and salaries which showed a rate of 2.35 per cent for the 50 years ending in 1978 and 2.29 per cent for the ten years ending in 1978. While the rate has been declining it appeared desirable to retain a margin of conservatism in the assumption, particularly since the assumed rate of real interest of 3.5 per cent (actually 3.398 per cent, which was chosen as representative of implicit assumed real interest rates used in the private sector and of the returns expected of balanced portfolios, might be subject to the criticism of tending to understate costs.
If the assumed real interest rate and real general salary increase rate used for purposes of the 1977 CPP Actuarial Report were substituted for those used for purposes of the 1977 PSSA Report, all the results relating to basic PSSA benefits would remain unchanged. However, the normal actuarial cost (current service contribution rate) for total benefits (including Supplementary Retirement Benefits), would have increased from 15.9 to 16.8 per cent and total estimated combined actuarial liabilities would have increased by about $580 million.
It might be added that the economic assumptions used for the 1977 PSSA Actuarial Report were the same as those used for the three CPP Actuarial Reports immediately preceding the Report as at December 31, 1977 (No. 6). For purposes of the CPP Actuarial Report No. 6 the assumed real rate of increase in earnings levels was decreased from 2xh per cent to 2 per cent and the assumed real interest rate was reduced from 3V4 per cent to 3 per cent. The decrease in the assumed rate of increase in real earnings meant that the estimated CPP contribution rates (i.e. pay-as-you-go costs) would be determined on a slightly more conservative basis. For a "funded" plan such as the PSSA, such a reduction in the assumed real rate of increase in earnings levels would have had the opposite effect. The concomitant change in the assumed real interest rate for the CPP Report was of relatively little importance but would be significant in the determination of costs for a "funded" plan such as the PSSA.
3.	Approximate increase in real salaries received by PSSA contributors as a result of salary revisions in the last ten calendar years.
	Per cent
1972	1.0
1973	0.3
1974	2.0
1975	3.3
1976	3.6
1977	-1.5
1978	-1.8
1979	-0.2
1980	0.5
1981	-0.3
Note: Salary increase information is maintained on a calendar rather than a fiscal year basis.
Information regarding salary increases due to promotions each year is not available. Promotional salary increase assumptions used in the actuarial reports are determined by making comparisons of salary movements for various age groups between valuations.
4.	As outlined in the response to Parts 1 and 2, the premise of the question is not correct.
5.	The 1977 PSSA deficit estimated at $61.5 million is the result of all the assumptions entering into the actuarial calculations. As noted in the reply to Parts 1 and 2 above, the salary increases assumed for purposes of the CPP would not be appropriate for use in connection with PSSA estimates, because of the different promotional patterns.
6.	(a) The actuarial report on the Public Service Superannuation Account as at December 31, 1977, was tabled on October 29, 1980. Since it was estimated that as at that time the Public Service Superannuation Account was in a surplus position, principally as a result of the fact that until the tabling of the report the actuarial liability adjustments on account of general economic salary increases were being determined with reference to the totality of increases in excess of 51/2 per cent,
January 21, 1983

the Minister determined that no amount needed to be credited to the account pursuant to Section 34(3).
(b) As described in (a) above, the deficit referred to in the actuarial report on the Public Service Superannuation Account as at December 31, 1977 was estimated to no longer exist when the report was tabled. Consequently, no credit was made to the account with respect to the deficit that existed on December 31, 1977.
The financial position of the Public Service Superannuation Account as at September 30, 1980 was determined by projecting the results of the December 31, 1977 valuation to September 30, 1980 together with the actual income and outgo of the fund. On the basis of this calculation, the fund was estimated to be in a slight surplus position on September 30, 1980.
7.	The premise of the question that the real salary increases assumed for purposes of the 1977 CPP Report were 2 per cent per annum is incorrect as noted in the reply to Part 1. Implicit career-specific salary increases assumed for purposes of the CPP Report are not readily available and in any event would be quite inappropriate for use in connection with PSSA estimates.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Did the actuarial reports on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) prior to December 31. 1974 examine the RCMPSA using economic assumptions that reflected a zero inflation scenario?
2.	Did the actuarial report on the RCMPSA as at December 31, 1974 examine the RCMPSA using economic assumptions that reflected a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario and, if so, what windfall gains were realized by the RCMPSA with respect to (a) the amount required to finance RCMPSA benefits earned to December 31, 1974 (b) the employer contribution rate required to finance all RCMPSA benefits in respect of current service after December 31, 1974 solely because the 1974 RCMPSA valuation was carried out in a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario?
3.	To what extent would the windfall gains realized by the RCMPSA through the move to a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario in the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial report have been reduced if the calculation of RCMPSA benefits after December 31, 1974 were made on the basis of a RCMPSA contributor's (a) best consecutive (i) five (ii) four (iii) three (iv) two (b) best single year annual salary?
4.	What windfall gains would have been realized by the RCMPSA with respect to the amount required to finance RCMPSA benefits earned to December 31, 1974 and the employer contribution rate required to finance RCMPSA benefits on account of current service after December 31, 1974 if the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial report had moved to economic assumptions reflecting annual inflation scenarios of 6 per cent and 9 per cent respectively and if the calculation of RCMPSA benefits after December 31, 1974 were made on the basis of a RCMPSA contributor's (a) best consecutive (i) six (ii) five (iii) four (iv) three (v) two (b) best single year annual salary?
5.	Does the December 31, 1974 actuarial report on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) assume that RCMPSA contributors will, through salary revisions and promotions, experience an average long-term increase in their real salaries of more than 2 per cent per annum, that is more than two percentage points above the implicitly assumed rate of annual inflation and, if so, what is the annual real rate of salary increases that the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial report assumes will be received by RCMP personnel through salary revisions and promotions?
6.	What was the average annual percentage increase in real salaries that was received by RCMPSA contributors as a result of salary revisions and promotions for each of the past ten fiscal years?
Order Paper Questions
7.	If the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial report assumes that RCMP personnel will, through salary revisions and promotions, receive real salary increases of more than the annual 2 per cent real earnings increase assumed for Canadians contributing to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) in the 1977 actuarial report, have representatives of RCMPSA contributors and pensioners been consulted on continuing the future financing of the RCMPSA on the assumption that RCMP personnel in future will receive larger annual increases in their real salaries than Canadians in general who contribute to the CPP and, if not, for what reason?
8.	What would be the size of the actuarial surplus of the RCMPSA as at December 31, 1974 if the 1974 RCMPSA actuarial report had assumed that RCMP personnel through salary revisions and promotions would receive the same real salary increases as Canadians contributing to the CPP, which was 2 per cent per annum, and if the 1974 report remained unchanged in all other respects?


Peter Joseph Lang: 1. Yes.
2.	The actuarial report on the RCMPSA as at December 31, 1974 used economic assumptions of 6.5 per cent annual interest and 5.5 per cent annual salary increases. While no explicit assumption was made with regard to inflation, an implicit assumption of 3 per cent annual inflation was included in the two economic assumptions used.
Previous reports were based on assumptions of 4 per cent interest rates, zero per cent for salary increases and no inflation assumption. In the most recent report (as at December 31, 1974), the real interest rate could be said to have changed from 4 per cent to 3.5 per cent and salary increases related to productivity were assumed to be 2.5per cent.
The effects of using an implicit inflation assumption of 3per cent, and therefore raising the interest and salary increase rate assumptions from 3.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent respectively were as follows: (a) with respect to benefits earned to December 31, 1974 a decrease in liabilities of $209.3 million; (b) with respect to the employer current service cost for service after December 31, 1974 a decrease of 8.6 per cent of contributory payroll from 19.8 per cent to 11.2per cent.
3.	The effect on the amounts shown in question 2 of lowering the number of years over which RCMP salaries are averaged for benefit calculation purposes would be as follows:
Table 1
Salary Averaging Period
5 years 4 years 3 years 2 years	1 year
(000,000's)
Reduction of the $209 million decrease in liabilities shown in question 2	12	25	38	52	66
(per cent)
Reduction of current service cost difference of 8.6 per cent of contributory payroll, as a per cent of contributory payroll	0.55	1.12	1.7	2.3	2.93

January 21, 1983
Order Paper Questions
4.	The effect of using implicit annual inflation assumptions of 6 per cent and 9 per cent instead of zero per cent, along
with reduced salary averaging periods, would have been as follow:
Table 2
6 per cent Inflation Scenario	6 years	5 years	Salary Averaging Period 4 years	3 years	2 years	1 year
			(000,000's)			
Decrease in liabilities in respect of service prior to December 31, 1974	326	314	301	287	273	258
			(per cent)			
Decrease in current service cost for service after December 31,1974, as a per cent of contributory payroll	13.33	12.78	12.21	11.61	10.98	10.339 per cent Inflation Scenario	6 years	5 years	Salary Averaging Period 4 years	3 years	2 years	1 year(000,000's)	Decrease in liabilities in respect of service prior to December 31,1974	397	385	373	359	345	330(per cent)	Decrease in current service cost for service after December 31, 1974, as a per cent of contributory payroll	16.22	15.69	15.13	14.54	13.91	13.265.	The 1974 RCMPSA Report assumes that RCMPSA contributors will, through salary revisions and promotions, experience an average long-term increase in their real salaries of more than 2 per cent per annum, i.e., more than two percentage points above the implicitly assumed rate of annual inflation. It is impossible to calculate a single meaningful average figure since the average compound rate depends on the range of ages being considered as indicated in the following examples.
Information regarding salary increases due to promotions each year is not available. Promotional salary increase assumptions used in the actuarial reports are determined by making comparisons of salary movements for various age groups between valuations.
7.	See reply to question 4,483, Parts 1, 2 and 4 answered this day.
8.	See reply to question 4,483, Part 7 answered this day.
Average Compound Annual Real Salary Increase Assumed in the 1974 RCMPSA Actuarial Report
Age Range
Male and Female
35-60
3.88
3.78
4.10
6.	Approximate increase in real salaries received by RCMPSA contributors as a result of salary revisions in the last ten calendar years.
1972	2.3
1973	- 1.4
1974	1.5
1975	2.5
1976	2.3
1977	- .3
1978	-2.9
1979	-1.6
1980	1.4
1981	.4
Note: Salary increase information is maintained on a calendar rather than a fiscal year basis.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Did the actuarial reports on the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) prior to December 31, 1975 examine the CFSA using economic assumptions that reflected a zero inflation scenario?
2.	Did the actuarial report on the CFSA as at December 31, 1975 examine the CFSA using economic assumptions that reflected a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario and, if so, what windfall gains were realized by the CFSA with respect to (a) the amount required to finance CFSA benefits earned to December 31, 1975 (b) the employer contribution rate required to finance all CFSA benefits in respect of current service after December 31, 1975 solely because the 1975 CFSA valuation was carried out in a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario?
3.	To what extent would the windfall gains realized by the CFSA through the move to a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario in the 1975 actuarial report have been reduced if the calculation of CFSA benefits after December 31, 1975 were made on the basis of a CFSA contributor's (a) best consecutive (i) five (ii) four (iii) three (iv) two (b) best single year annual salary?
4.	What windfall gains would have been realized by the CFSA with respect to the amount required to finance CFSA benefits earned to December 31, 1975 and the employer contribution rate required to finance CFSA benefits on account of current service after December 31, 1975 if the 1975 CFSA actuarial report had moved to economic assumptions reflecting annual inflation scenarios of 6 per cent and 9 per cent respectively and if the calculations of CFSA benefits after December 31, 1975 were made on the basis of a CFSA contributor's (a) best consecutive (i) six (ii) five (iii) four (iv) three (v) two (b) best single year annual salary?
January 21, 1983

5.	Does the December 31, 1975 actuarial report on the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) assume that CFSA contributors will, through salary revisions and promotions, experience an average long-term increase in their real salaries of more than 2 per cent per annum, that is more than two percentage points above the implicitly assumed rate of annual inflation and, if so, what is the annual real rate of salary increases that the 1975 CFSA actuarial report assumes will be received by military personnel through salary revisions and promotions?
6.	What was the average annual percentage increase in real salaries that was received by CFSA contributors as a result of salary revisions and promotions for each of the past ten fiscal years?
7.	If the 1975 CFSA actuarial report assumes that military personnel will, though salary revisions and promotions, receive real salary increases of more than the annual 2 per cent real earnings increase assumed for Canadians contributing to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) in the 1977 CPP actuarial report, have representatives of CFSA contributors and pensioners been consulted on continuing the future financing of the CFSA on the assumption that military personnel in future will receive larger increases in their real salaries than Canadians in general who contribute to the CPP and, if not, for what reason?
8.	What would be the size of the actuarial surplus of the CFSA as at December 31, 1975 if the 1975 CFSA actuarial report had assumed that military personnel, through salary revisions and promotions, would receive the same real salary increases as Canadians contributing to the CPP, which was 2 per cent per annum, and if the 1975 report remained unchanged in all other respects?


Peter Joseph Lang: 1. Yes.
2. The actuarial report on the CFSA as at December 31, 1975 used economic assumptions of 6.5 per cent annual interest and 5.5 per cent annual salary increases. While no explicit assumption was made with regard to inflation, an implicit assumption of 3 per cent annual inflation was included in the two economic assumptions used.
Previous reports were based on assumptions of 4 per cent interest rates, zero per cent for salary increases and no inflation assumptions. In the most recent report (as at December
Order Paper Questions
31, 1975), the real interest rate could be said to have changed from 4 per cent to 3.5 per cent and salary increases related to productivity were assumed to be 2.5 per cent.
The effect of using an implicit inflation assumption of 3 per cent, and therefore raising the interest and salary increase rate assumptions from 3.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent, respectively, were as follows: (a) with respect to benefits earned to December 31, 1975 a decrease in liabilities of $2,438 million; (b) with respect to the employer current service costs after December 31, 1975 a decrease of 8.2 per cent of contributory payroll from 19.0 per cent to 10.8 per cent.
3. The effect on the amounts shown in question 2 of lowering the number of years over which CFSA salaries are averaged for benefit calculation purposes would be as follows:
Table 1
Salary Averaging Period
	5 years	4 years	3 years	2 years	1 year
			(000,000's)		
Reduction in the $2,438 million decrease in liabilities shown in question 2	106	215	328	445	565
			(per cent)		
Reduction of the current service cost difference of 8.2 per cent of contributory payroll, as a per cent of contributory payroll	0.54	1.11	1.69	2.28	2.90
4.	The effect of using implicit annual inflation assumptions, of 6 per cent and 9 per cent along with reduced salary averaging periods would have been as follows:
Table 2
Salary Averaging Period
6 per cent Inflation Scenario	6 years	5 years	4 years	3 years	2 years	1 yearDecrease in liabilities in respect of service prior to December 31, 1975	3,828	3,721	(000,000's) 3,609	3,491	3,368	3,240Decrease in current service cost for service after December 31, 1975 as a per cent of payroll	12.87	12.33	(per cent) 11.76	11.17	10.55	9.909 per cent inflation Scenario Decrease in liabilities in respect of service prior to December 31, 1975	4,688	4,585	Salary Averaging Period (000,000's) 4,475	4,360	4,237	4,107Decrease in current service cost for service after December 31, 1975 as a per cent of payroll	15.67	15.15	(per cent) 14.60	14.02	13.41	12.75
January 21, 1983
Order Paper Questions
5.	The 1975 CFSA Report assumes that CFSA contributors will, through salary revisions and promotions, experience an average long-term increase in their real salaries of more than 2 per cent per annum, i. e., more than two percentage points above the implicitly assumed rate of annual inflation. It is impossible to calculate a single average figure since the average compound rate depends on the range of ages considered as indicated in the following examples:
Average Compound Annual Real Salary Increase Assumed in the 1975 CFSA Actuarial Report
Age Range		
Officers	Male	Female45-60	3.77	3.4335-60	3.79	3.7225-60	4.31	4.71Other Ranks	45-60	3.91	3.2535-60	3.92	3.3125-60	4.18	3.936.	Approximate increase in real salaries received by CFSA contributors as a result of salary revisions in the last ten calendar years.
Per cent
1972	3.6
1973	6.1
1974	4.1
1975	2.5
1976	.7
1977	-1.5
1978	- .3
1979	- .2
1980	.3
1981	1.6
Note: Salary increase information is maintained on a calendar rather than a fiscal year basis.
Information regarding salary increases due to promotions each year is not available. Promotional salary increase assumptions used in the actuarial reports are determined by making comparisons of salary movements for various age groups between valuations.
7.	See reply to question 4,483, Parts 1, 2 and 4 answered this day.
8.	See reply to question 4,483, Part 7 answered this day.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): For each of the past ten fiscal years, what was the amount of (a) interest earned (b) employee contributions (c) employer contributions (d) disability, survivor and retirement pensions paid from the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account, the Public Service Superannuation Account and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account?


Peter Joseph Lang: 1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1976-	77
1977-	78
1978-	79
1979-	80
1980-	81
1981-	82
1972-	73
1973-	74
(a)
Interest
Credited
184.2
202.9
227.0
263.9
297.2 336.4
374.7
416.7
608.1
837.3
9.5 11.6
Public Service Superannuation Account
Additional Interest	(b) Employee	(c)	EmployerEarned	Contributions	Contributions87.4	(000,000's) 126.2	205.8106.8	141.5	208.9137.3	168.2	287.4182.6	200.8	320.7227.1	247.5	330.7279.4	285.2	353.3340.3	296.1	380.9406.6	314.9	328.8371.3	350.7	399.5355.0	403.4	606.1
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account
4.5
6.2
7.5
21.4
21.9
(d)
Pension
Payments
121.6
139.4 161.6
187.5 218.0 254.9
297.2
351.2 403.7
459.6
1.9
2.4
8.6
January 21, 1983

1974-75	14.3	8.71975-76	17.3	12.01976-77	20.5	15.71977-78	24.4	20.21978-79	44.8	9.01979-80	51.5	12.51980-81	58.8	18.61981-82	68.0	28.910.9	Order Paper Questions 26.8	3.313.3	34.1	4.015.2	40.6	5.216.8	44.6	6.718.3	59.4	8.519.5	54.2	10.622.5	51.3	13.326.8	53.2	15.9
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account
1972-73	163.0	77.3	44.1	169.4	114.61973-74	189.9	100.7	48.7	237.4	129.51974-75	217.7	131.8	52.0	276.9	146.51975-76	243.2	168.5	56.3	317.6	164.31976-77	265.0	202.6	63.0	312.3	180.61977-78	289.5	240.2	67.0	289.8	198.81978-79	310.7	282.0	70.7	189.1	219.61979-80	340.1	312.0	74.1	133.1	242.51980-81	479.8	271.0	80.1	142.3	266.81981-82	618.0	262.0	91.3	198.9	291.5
Note: The employer contributions include the net cost of amortizing actuarial deficiencies after the application of interest earnings of the accounts which were in excess of the rate assumed by the actuary in his actuarial reports.


Mr. Siddon: 1.	What amount did Petro-Canada spend for advertising in the fiscal year (a)
1980-	81 (b) 1981-82?
2.	What amount did Petro-Canada budget for advertising in the fiscal year 1982-83?
3.	What percentage of Petro-Canada's fiscal year 1982-83 advertising will be devoted to (a) newspapers and magazines (b) radio (c) television (d) trade show or convention exhibits (e) any other?
4.	Did Petro-Canada declare a deficit in the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b)
1981-	82 and, if so, what was the extent of that deficit?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1.	(a) January 1, 1981-December 31, 1981-$1,136,000; (b) January 1, 1982-October 27, 1982-$5,737,751.
2.	Petro-Canada's 1982 advertising budget including all aspects of production, research and media expenses is $6,325,000. The Corporation's 1983 budget has not yet been established.
3.	(a) 14 per cent, (b) 17.5 per cent, (c) 58.5 per cent, (d) Trade shows and exhibits are not included in Petro-Canada's advertising budget, (e) 10 per cent.
4.	(a) and (b) No.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	As of March 31, 1982, what was the balance of (a) the Public Service Superannuation Account (b) the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (c) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (d) the superannuation account of judges, senators. Members of Parliament and diplomats (e) any other superannuation account?
2.	As of the same date, what was the balance of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account?
3.	For each account mentioned in Parts I and 2. is interest paid and, if so, at what rate?
4.	For each superannuation account mentioned in Part 1, what are the (a) number of recipients (b) average benefits paid?
5.	(a) How many persons receive supplementary retirement benefits (b) what are the average benefits paid?
6.	Are supplementary retirement benefits indexed and, if so, what percentage of this indexation is paid by (a) public servants (b) public funds?
7.	If the superannuation account was combined with the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (a) in each case, what would be the (i) five-year (ii) ten-year actuarial projections (b) on what (i) inflation (ii) interest rates would the projections be based?
8.	For the superannuation accounts mentioned in Part 1 (a) from 1976 to 1983, what was the annual contribution from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to

January 21, 1983
Order Paper Questions
meet full indexation (b) what would be the anticipated contribution for 1983, assuming the full indexation was granted to the recipients?
9.	What would be the amount of the proportion of supplementary retirement benefits coming from public funds, if that proportion was set at a maximum of 6 per cent?
10.	If the money mentioned in Part 9 was distributed among the neediest, could the full indexing be paid to all persons receiving less than the average superannuation benefits mentioned in Part 1 without having to pay out public funds and, if so, would the Government consider it?
11.	What would be the supplementary contribution required to pay the full indexation to all recipients in (a) 1983 (b) 1984?
12.	Did some retired public servants contribute to the indexing of their pensions and (a) if so, what was their average salary (b) if not (i) how many in each group did contribute (ii) what was their average salary?
13.	Is it possible to distribute supplementary retirement benefits in such a way as to pay the full indexation to some recipients and partial indexation to others and, if so, how would that money be distributed if the total benefits envelope increased by 6 per cent only?


Peter Joseph Lang: Balance at March 31, 1982
I. (a) Public Service Superannuation Account	$14,757,155,902
(b)	Canadian Forces Superannuation Account	$10,343,553,408(c)	Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation	$ 1,212,155,985
Account
(d)	Members of Parliament Retiring Allowance Account	$ 13,861,821
(e)	No superannuation account is maintained with respect to the pension plans of Judges, Senators appointed prior to 1965, Lieutenant Governors or the Governor General
2.	Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account $1,215,769,564.
3.	(a) Interest is earned by the Public Service, Canadian Forces and RCMP Superannuation Accounts, on a quarterly basis as if the excess of receipts over disbursements since the accounts were established had been invested in long term Government of Canada bonds, and as if these amounts had been reinvested at current rates every 20 years. The resulting weighted average rate as of September 30, 1982 was 10.2 per cent, expressed as an effective annual rate.
(b)	Interest is credited to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account at the end of each quarter, and is calculated on the minimum monthly balance at a rate based on the yield of an outstanding Government of Canada bond having a term to maturity of five years, less V* of 1 per cent. The rate for the quarter ending September 30, 1982 was 16.125 per cent.
(c)	The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Account is currently credited quarterly with interest at a rate of 1.75 per cent or 7.2 per cent as an effective annual rate.
	Number of	Average Annual
	Recipients	Benefits Paid
Public Service Superannuation Account	122,600	$4,035Canadian Forces Superannuation Account	68,100	$4,560Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account	2,560	$7,300Members of Parliament Retiring	335	$5,950
Allowances Account
5. Supplementary Retirement	162,100	$3,450
Benefits Account
6.	(a) Benefits payable under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act are themselves indexed.
(b) Currently less than 10 per cent of indexing benefits are charged against the contributions made in respect of former public servants and over 90 per cent are charged to public funds.
7.	In the Actuarial Reports for the PSSA as at December 31, 1977, the CFSA as at December 31, 1975 and the RCMPSA as at December 31, 1974 appendices were included showing the valuation results on the assumption that the benefits pursuant to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act were combined with the benefits arising out of the basic superannuation accounts.
The assumptions with respect to inflation and interest rates used in the Reports referred to above, when the benefits under SRBA were combined with the basic benefits, were 3 per cent and 6V2 per cent, respectively. When performing valuations of the superannuation accounts, whether in combination with SRBA benefits or not, assumptions are made not just for five or ten years but for the period of time that reflects the life expectancy of the current membership of the plan, including their dependants. The economic assumptions involving interest, general salary increases and inflation are made on the basis of the relationship that is believed to exist among them and on the basis of the best long-term forecasts for such rates that are available. Economic assumptions with respect to the valuations currently in progress have not yet been determined.
8.	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	Estimated 1982 1983	Public servants	78	102	126	160	193	248	324	420Armed Forces	34	47	68	87	124	133	172	221RCMP	4.2	5.4	6.5	8	9.6	11.6	15	18Members of Parliament	.3	.4	.5	.6	.7	.7	.9	1 .1
Note: The amounts shown for the RCMP and the Armed Forces include benefits paid to recipients under the RCMP and Defence Services Continuation Acts, for which there are no accounts. Also, the amounts shown were estimated from fiscal year data.
9.	If benefits that are indexed from public funds were limited to a 6 per cent increase in 1983, and other benefits increased by 11.5 per cent, new indexing payable in 1983 would be approximately $80 million.
10.	The $80 million mentioned in Part 9 could provide roughly full indexing on the first $5,100 of all pensions, if no indexing were applied to amounts over $5,100. The Government recognizes the contributions of former public servants
January 21, 1983

and is proposing to modify Bill C-133 to set indexing at 6.5 per cent in 1983 and 5.5 per cent in 1984.
11.	(a) 1983-about $60 million or about .6 per cent of salaries.
(b) 1984-about $105 million or about 1 per cent of salaries.
12.	All public servants who retired about April 1, 1970 contributed some amount towards the indexing of their pensions. It is estimated that about 24,700 retired public servants who are receiving indexing benefits still have money to their credit in the indexing account. Information on their average salaries is not readily available.
13.	A legislative amendment would be required to fully index some pensions and partially index others. See reply to Part 10.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I ask Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its callous disregard and tragic neglect of the dire economic and social plight of the over two million Canadians who are now unemployed and of the increasing lack of job security which threatens the livelihood and well-being of this country's remaining 10.4 million workers, and that, on behalf of all Canadians, this House insists that the Government take immediate steps to restore social and economic health to Canada by: forging a social and economic consensus between business, labour and government, encouraging job creating investment, establishing a National Productivity Strategy to restore Canada as a world class competitor, and rebuilding the confidence of individual Canadians in the future of this country.
He said: Madam Speaker, during the last number of months and years, we on this side of the House and indeed many people in the country have urged the necessity upon the Government of striking a program which will bring this country to greater levels of employment and general economic recovery. Indeed, economic reconstruction has been the basis upon which our questions and speeches in the House and our public policies have been put forward.
Indeed, we have discussed and urged upon the Government the necessity for the creation of an environment for long-term
Supply
job creation. Without investment there are no jobs. Second, we have urged the Government to take advantage of greater productivity to allow Canadian business, labour and Canadians generally to take advantage of new opportunities for productivity. Third, we have continually urged upon the Government the necessity for Canadians to be able to take advantage of the new technology that has been sweeping the world. Fourth, we have demanded time and again that the Government move, instead of talk, on training programs which would allow Canadians to become skilled and world competitive as they once were.
We have insisted month after month-now year after year-that the Government increase its investment and encourage private investment in research and development. In 1968, an independent board recommended to this Government that we increase our participation in research and development to 1.5 per cent of our Gross National Product. We are still looking to get just above 1 per cent. We now stand last in the industrial world in our commitment to research and development.
Finally, we have insisted time and again that the Government should act and not merely talk on the question of direct job creation.
Those six items which I have just listed-job-creating investment, greater productivity, new technology, new training facilities and training courses, increased research and development and increased direct job-creation programs-are the six pinnacles of future progress which we have insisted upon and urged the Government to reach. Those six items have become the main topic for discussion by almost everyone, with the possible exception of the Government, as evidenced by its slow approach to these issues.
In the past few months a new phrase has engaged the interest of increasing numbers of people across the country. It relates to the importance of forming a national consensus in this country which, without addressing these six items, cannot be achieved. That national consensus is required in order to achieve increased investment for jobs, greater productivity, new technology and research development and direct job creation.
Before those words pass into Liberal buzz words which they can use as points for discussion so that they do not have to do anything, I thought it might be useful if I took my time today to talk about what people really mean by that national consensus.
Pat Johnston is Vice-President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Incidentally, she referred to the unemployment level in Canada as unconscionable. She has said that we need in Canada a policy consensus for recovery. Ronald Anderson, a respected columnist in The Globe and Mail, talked about the disturbing level in the past decade of a progressive loss of a sense of common purpose and shared objective. He noted just last week that there was a widening schism among Government, business, industry and labour. Also he noted the widening between the Provinces and the federal Government, that while the talk got better, the action

January 21, 1983
Supply
was not getting any better. Russell Harrison, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, said in a speech this week that if this country did not prevent division within it, it will not be able to respond to the challenges of the 1980s and 1990s.
Across the country more and more people are beginning to understand that unless we can forge a national consensus, what politicians, bureaucrats and opinion leaders talk about will merely be at the level of chat. It will not be effective because there is not within us yet a will to establish that national consensus. I might say that when most people talk about national consensus they are really referring to what I would call the larger pieces of society. Normally we are talking about the relationship of Government, business and labour. In the last 15 years the sad but true fact is that relationships between the Government and business have deteriorated to a low which has never been seen before in the history of Canada. This is undeniable.
The priorities of the business sector are simple-growth, employment and price stability. Those used to be the goals of the federal Government prior to 1968. Indeed, it was Mr. Harrison, the banker, who said that what happened in the past number of years was that this federal Government had broken the historical consensus which allowed the country to have some kind of progress and prosperity for its people. It is this Government which has broken the historical consensus that was necessary for business to flourish, for growth to occur, for jobs to begin and for stability to be with us once again.
In the past two years we have seen budgets based only on the premise that the Government can do best and that business and labour do not. We have seen policies which stifled initiative and a continuation of the concept within bureaucracy and the Government that if it is not the Government that does it then it is not important. This kind of philosophy has contributed to the awesome deterioration between the Government and business enterprises in the country.
If the Government has been bad for business, it has been deplorable for labour. There has been no labour policy in Canada for 15 years. Labour has no place at the national table with the Government. Mark Daniels, no stranger to the House, is the Deputy Minister of Labour. At the University of Toronto on Monday he said that the labour factor has been ignored for over 15 years in federal Government decisions, that labour issues have not been a part of policy planning and that it was one of the federal Government's great failures. Those comments were made by the federal Deputy Minister of Labour.
On Wednesday a conference held by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) was concluded. It was the National Occupations Outlook Conference. One would expect that an opportunity would have been provided for labour to play a full role and that there would have been an acceptance of labour as a national part of the way in which we can get out of the recession and into a new period of prosperity. Did labour have a role? "No", said the federal Government.
Let us look at the response from labour. As far as it is concerned, this week at the conference the role of labour was blatantly biased and denigrated. The entire conference was to deal with a program known as COPS, a computer system concerned with monitoring and projecting labour needs of the future. The program was developed after the federal Government rejected a proposal by business and labour, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Business Council on National Issues.
Three years ago, the Business Council on National Issues, in concert with the CLC, came to the federal Government and said that they would like to participate. The federal Government delayed and delayed and finally denied and rejected one of the few occasions in recent history where business and labour came together. They were scuttled by the Government. Is it any wonder that labour and business find that they have no connection with the Liberal Government and that they have had no connection with it for the past 15 years?
When people talk about national consensus, they are now increasingly not only talking about the relationship of business, labour and Government. They are also talking, perhaps much more fundamentally, about the relationship of Canadians one with the other. Those of us who had the opportunity to read the letter from the Bishops, the so-called "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis", and to think about it and discuss it, would offer a thanks to the Bishops for reminding not only us but, more important, the Government that economic issues are social issues and that social issues are moral issues; that economic decisions are also moral choices.
In passing, it reminds me that Adam Smith, the great chronicler and fundamental thinker of the free market system, was a professor of ethics and moral philosophy. This is why the Bishops were on good ground on two fundamental points. In their first point they reminded us of the importance, the value and dignity of human work. They said that people contribute to their community and give meaning to their existence as human beings through work. This is why unemployment for most people is a loss of human dignity and of a sense of self-worth. This is why the Bishops reminded us that unemployment deprived people of work and of an income with which they could carry out their responsibilities to themselves, their families and their communities. Not to have that work is, as the Bishops said, a social evil. That is why, thanks to the Bishops, we have all been reminded that unemployment in this country is a personal tragedy, a national shame. If there is any one single body which has had responsibility for the past 15 years, it is those who have failed to establish a consensus by which Canadians can come together as individuals and as groups of individuals to begin the restructuring of this society so that we can get out of this recession.
The second thing the Bishops said, which is important to me and to everyone, was that we need to remind the Government to worry about the growing tendency to treat individuals as
January 21, 1983

impersonal forces, having little or no significance beyond their economic purpose in the system. I guess we all knew that. I think maybe the Government collectively, and so many of us, have forgotten that. It is simple. If people are treated as though their contribution is irrelevant, then they will feel irrelevant. If people feel they do not count, then they will feel that not much else counts either. If people lose their stake in society, we all lose the very glue that holds our communities, neighbourhoods, villages, towns and cities together. When we lose that, we have no consensus.
That is what is at stake when we talk about unemployment in this country. What is at stake is not an economic category. What is at stake is not economic statistics. What is at stake is whether or not people are able to see themselves as something other than economic events and, indeed, as unemployed, not even that. Need anybody be reminded? The Bishops did it for us.
The single most important problem in this country, bar none, is unemployment. Secondly, unemployment can no longer be and ought never to have been considered as only an economic problem. That is why we condemn the Government. We condemn the Government because it has failed. The Government has failed, as I indicated earlier, to create an environment by which investment can occur, so that people in this country will have jobs. The Government has failed to take advantage of opportunities so that we can become more productive and therefore more competitive. The Government has failed to take advantage, particularly during the seventies, of the new technology sweeping this world, leaving this country behind. The Government has failed since 1968 when Jean Marchand-now Senator Marchand-brought in the Training Act. Now he is a member of the other place. For 15 years this Government has done nothing with respect to training. The Government also failed to do little more than talk and provide the country with more initials, instead of creating real, live jobs in terms of direct job creation.
Finally, we condemn this Government because it has failed to do one thing that does not cost money. It failed at the one thing it could do and has not done, and that is, to create a national consensus in this country. And it is now unable to do so. It is exhausted and bankrupt and is unable to create the national consensus which is absolutely vital to the future of this country. That is why this motion should be supported in this House today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Perhaps the Chair should remind Hon. Members that our provisional Standing Orders provide for comments, questions and answers for a period of not more than ten minutes at this time. Therefore, if I see Members rising I presume it is to put questions to the Hon. Member who has just spoken.


Mrs. Hervieux-Payette:: Mr. Speaker, following the comments made by the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), I have a few questions, but 1 would first like to point out that Quebec Members have always had an abiding
Supply
concern for employment. Last year, we sent a letter to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with our comments on the budget, and subsequently, a number of job creation measures were taken, the last one being the NEED program, which I hope will provide part of the jobs needed by Canadians in these difficult times, and this includes the $220 million granted to Quebec.
However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the solutions proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party, the instant answers for bringing down inflation, would not increase the deficit. The aim would be to create jobs, promote investment, protect the workers and at the same time maintain the new concept of profit put forward by the bishops. Mr. Speaker,
I have a great deal of trouble reconciling the comments made by the Member for Rosedale with the philosophy of the Progressive Conservative Party, which has been concentrating far more on the profit concept than on job creation.


David Edward Crombie: I thought, since I said it twice, the Hon. Member would have heard what 1 said earlier with respect to the things we have talked about in this House for the past two years, and even before that. If the Government would like to hear it one more time, I will say it.
The first thing the Government should do is to begin to create, for the first time in a long time, an environment to attract investment to produce jobs. Investment in this country has gone down by 50 per cent in terms of capital investment. People are not investing and the reason is that they have lacked confidence for so long in this Government. So the first thing the Government can do is to create an environment in which people can invest so that jobs can be created.
Second, the Government, for the past 12 years in particular-I said 15 years before, but I will be more precise-has slowly moved away from any consideration of the importance of productivity for people in this society. Productivity is the way in which we become competitive. We are not competitive because we have not been as productive as we could have been, and consequently we have lost jobs.
Third, one of the greatest sins is that although new technology has been around this world for about 20 years, the Government has been almost negligent in taking advantage of it. The Hon. Member does not have to accept my word for that. Just look at any independent national or international monitor and it will tell you that our record is either the worst or close to the worst, at a time when it did not have to be, because we were one of the wealthiest countries in the world at that time.
Fourth, the Government-and here 1 will give a small piece of credit to it-appointed as chairman of the advisory committee to the Minister of Employment and Immigration Mr. Tom Sosa of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. Perhaps the one good thing the Government has done was to ask his advice. I have known this man for 20 years. It is through the influence of that man that the Government has been able at least to bring forward the National Training Act.

January 21, 1983
Supply
This Government has also been responsible for the 15 years during which we got behind the rest of the world in training. That is why we had to import 25,000 skilled workers into this country at a time when unemployment was rising. That was the result of inaction by the Government for 15 years.
Back in 1968, Tom Kent, a Liberal 1 can talk about, recommended that there ought to be 1.5 per cent of the Gross National Product dedicated to research and development. It has been .9 per cent since then.


Mr. Peterson:: You are wrong.


David Edward Crombie: Or 1.1 per cent; it went up and then went back to .9 per cent. Check the figures. Indeed, the only thing the Government has done is to re-establish the goal of 1.5 per cent, the goal that was given to them in 1968. That is why the OECD will tell you that we have not one of the worst but the worst record in research and development in the western industrialized world. They will tell you that it is directly attributable to the lack of policies of this federal Government.
Those are five courses of action. Had the Hon. Member and the Government listened to them, we would not have quite the problem we now have.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, if there is time for another question, 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he is in favour of increased Government investment in jobs as well as the private sector.
In view of his remarks about high technology, I would also like to ask another question. He knows of the permanent displacement of many women in service and clerical jobs. What would he do to ensure equal opportunities for women in the workforce, not only now, when it is far below what is needed, but in the future when they will be displaced permanently in the service and clerical fields?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question, would I favour public expenditure-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Increased public investment.


David Edward Crombie: Absolutely. I have on a number of occasions, as has this Party, advocated that the Government increase its investment in research and development. We supported strongly and indeed participated in the development of the National Training Act legislation. We voted for it at that time and wanted to increase the investment. I believe it was an increase of 15 per cent. We wanted to increase that investment and national training. Training and technology, ability and tools are the way in which people can have jobs. We have consistently not only supported it but advocated it, and we will continue to do so.
I might say just in passing-this is only a small matter in the scheme of things, but it reflects where the Government is-that on three occasions this week I have asked the Government if it would kindly increase the level of recruitment in the
Armed Forces. That is a simple thing. There are 25,000 applications. There are now 82,000 people in the Armed Forces. They want to do it. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) says he wants to do it, but the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) constantly says no. Even a Liberal backbencher stood up and asked how about it, and he said no. Yes, we want to increase public investment for jobs. Absolutely.
On the final question with respect to women workers, this is a very difficult problem, one that will get worse. That is why I and this Party have consistently advocated that we increase training opportunities, particularly as it relates to new technology. Moreover, and perhaps even before that is done, there is a need to create learning on the part of women and those who teach young girls that there are other role models, other ways in which things can be done. We have also advocated this.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). He made reference briefly to job-creation programs, particularly those that have evolved over the last 10 or 12 years. In the past some Members of his Party have been critical of these programs. One of the first things his Party did when briefly in power in 1979 was to do away with one of them. Does his Party now have a position with regard to these direct job-creation programs? Do they intend to support the continuing existence of them and would they continue to bring support to these kinds of these job-creation programs?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, there are two points. First, with regard to general job-creation programs, I do not think the Hon. Member can pick up one example of where we have opposed any job-creation program that this Minister has brought forward. Our problem with what the Minister has done is that it is more talk and not much action.
Most people know that whenever we get a new set of initials describing a new program, it goes away somewhere. It is very hard to get a handle on what it is the Minister is actually doing, let alone the fact that mainly we are only talking about jobs for less than 4 per cent of the unemployed. What the Government has done and the Minister keeps doing is try to take people's eyes away from the fact that there are no policies, the fact that 96 per cent of the people who are unemployed are in that position because the Government has failed to establish the national consensus which I talked about earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The ten minutes provided for questions has now ended.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As this is the first occasion when we have engaged in this back-and-forth questioning, we would be remiss if we did not extend our congratulations to the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) on what was an outstanding performance. I do not agree with much of what he said, but it was very well handled.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 21, 1983


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). I listened intently to the Hon. Member's speech. If it had been any other Conservative Member, I would have used the expression "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" or very little. Because 1 have great admiration, respect and warmth for the Hon. Member for Rosedale, I will not use that expression. He and I both belong to that group of people in the world who share the same size. I feel very akin to him for that.


An Hon. Member:: You have the same complex.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member says we have the same complex. This is not going to stop me from making some comments on the Hon. Member's speech. I am glad he is still in the Chamber. I wonder whether the Hon. Member has really been listening to the questions and answers in the House this past week. He said he put some. If he had listened to them, he would have seen that the Liberal Government's policy is moving very much toward the kind of policy that he seems to advocate. We saw this in an answer to a question by the NDP Member from Saskatchewan today who put a question about FIRA. We can see it with what is happening to the National Energy Program.
The Liberal Government is doing its collective best to tone down FIRA or forget about FIRA, and to deep-six the National Energy Program or at least play it down. It is saying to the Americans and Japanese that we need their investment. That is what is happening with Liberal policy. It is very much like the Conservative policy when you consider what there is to the Conservative policy.
The Hon. Member for Rosedale talked about gain, but what really is his policy? What is the analysis behind our problems? We all acknowledge that we have deep problems. Today the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) talked about 27 per cent unemployment in his riding. All Members know that. No one disputes that fact.
As a major part of his speech, the Hon. Member for Rosedale said that we are last in the industrial world in our commitment to research and development. I asked myself why we are the last. Is it because the Government is not putting in enough money? I think it is because industry is not putting enough money into research and development. Why not? I will give the answer to that later. However, that is the question the Hon. Member should really be asking.
The Hon. Member for Rosedale asked for a national consensus. It sounds good, but what is it? He says we need this national consensus, that we have somehow to change. We wonder what will bring our people together. Will it be the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) leaving? As a westerner, I can say that would be helpful; but honestly, will it really change our unemployment picture overnight? I think not. It might help, but nothing is going to fundamentally change.
Supply
Would it help if the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark)-as the slogan goes, "Joe must go"-goes next week? Is that going to bring a consensus in this country? I do not think so, although I would like to. It reminds me of what the former Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, Bob Rae, said in this House, that the Government had a sort of "Tinker-bell" attitude in its budget. The Hon. Member for Rosedale, despite his charm, buoyancy and energy, has that kind of a "Tinkerbell" attitude. It is as if we could just wish-


David Edward Crombie: Tinkerbell?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, "Tinkerbell" from Peter Pan. If you remember, Tinkerbell said: "If we just close our eyes and wish, it will happen". We can hold hands together and close our eyes and we have a national consensus.


An Hon. Member:: And we can all fly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: And suddenly we can fly, and the Canadian economy will fly. But it is not going to happen that way.
I want to analyze this situation. I say this seriously to the Hon. Member. I looked at the motion which he presented. He says we have to forge a consensus among business, labour and Government. Of course we have to, but what kind of consensus? What is the basis of the consensus? He says we should establish a national productivity strategy. Perhaps I should check the notes, but I did not hear one mention of what is the Conservative policy. Perhaps he did mention it, but I did not hear it.
May I suggest, in all my bias to the Hon. Member, that the Conservatives really do not have a policy. The "policy" is simply to wait until-


David Edward Crombie: Crosbie says after the election.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -the Tweedle-dum Liberal Government goes down to defeat, and hopefully they will replace it with a Tweedle-dee Conservative Government. Tommy Douglas used to say that choosing between Conservatives and Liberals is like choosing between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee; there is no real difference.
The Hon. Member even thanked the Bishops. Although I cannot speak on behalf of the Bishops, I am sure they are very pleased the Hon. Member thanked them; but he did not adopt their policies. Is he prepared to adopt what the Bishops have said? I want to come back in my speech later to what the Bishops really have said.
The Hon. Member also said that unemployment was a big problem. We agree, and the Bishops said that to a major extent.
Why, then, is the Hon. Member's Party so enthusiastic about the six and Five program, which is a program which is essentially supposed to be fighting inflation and trying to bring the inflation rate down? The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. You cannot choose to be the inflation fighter as

January 21, 1983
Supply
opposed to the job creator, it seems to me. What we really have in this country is the Liberal Government moving towards opening up again to American investment, and other investments, moving closer to monetarism, Reaganism, and the kind of thing which got us into this.
The Conservative Party-and the Hon. Member for Rose-dale, I am told, is perhaps the minority in that Party-is basically a Party which wants to go back in history and grab for the Reaganomics and those kinds of ideas. I would just ask the Hon. Member to sit in the House and listen to some of the speeches of his fellow Party Members when they outline their flirtation with these kinds of economics.
I would like to talk a little bit about what I think is wrong with the country today. I believe we have a general crisis in this country. We have a general crisis in the world. Let us level with ourselves in the House of Commons and with the Canadian people. We have had policies in Canada, but it is part of the world economic problem. We have not done much to make it better, but we should recognize that it is part of a world economic problem. We have a general crisis unlike the crisis of 1973 and 1974, when we had the recession which was based on adjusting to the OPEC oil increases. Eventually we got around the crisis caused by the petroleum pricing change.
It seems to me we have a major disequilibrium in the world system, and Canada is part of the world system. I see a number of causes. Our major industries which have served as a foundation for the economy in the past are losing their old predominance. This becomes clear when you listen to questions in the House about automobiles, steel, rubber, glass, construction materials. They are in decline. These industries can no longer serve as engines of growth for the economy as a whole. We have a world-wide over-capacity to produce the products in these fields relative to the available market.
It seems to me the Hon. Member barely touched on this in his speech, but he was going in the right direction when he talked about the new industries, which I feel will serve as engines of economic growth. The new engines, as I see it, are computers, data processing, microprocessing and microelectronics. This new technology will help our old industries also; for example, people know about robots in assembly lines at automobile plants, and so on. Why can we not take advantage completely of what is happening in the new industries? What we are seeing is a decline in the economic power of the United States, and because Canada is so closely associated with the United States, and because of the traditional Liberal policy of continentalism, it is vulnerable to the "bad" things, if you like, which happen in the United States. The power is moving from the United States partly to Western Europe, but also to Japan. The reason it is moving to Japan is that that country has gambled on the new high technology industries.
There is a decline in traditional industries. We are at the end of the U.S. technological predominance and we are seeing no less than the end to the post-war world. It will no longer come back to that general upward trend. We would all like to see us get back to the sixties and seventies, but it will not come back to that.
I said I would try to state the matter as honestly as I could. What can we do about it? For example, France, a socialist country, started to prime the economy. That was not the solution. It did not work. They primed the economy and who benefited? Consumers went out and they spent. The richer ones bought German Mercedes-Benz cars and the poorer ones bought Italian Fiats. So it did not benefit the one country. Because we are in a wider market, a wider world, we have to consider that a vast economic stimulus may not work.
What the Conservatives have offered in the past was "Let's be pals with the oil industry and Bay Street and everything will work out fine". But that is not going to make any difference any more. More progressive people have said we should stimulate the economy, get producer demand going and so on, but perhaps that is not going to work either. It will help, but it will not necessarily work because we are in a new world and we have to make some fundamental changes. We need massive investments in key productive sectors of the economy. We have to make a rapid transition away from our obsolete technology which is being used in the branch plants of multinational companies.
The answer to the question I posed to the Hon. Member for Rosedale, why are we not investing in R and D, is that the branch plants of the multinational companies do not want to do that. They have never done that. They invest in the United States. The Hon. Member, who is from Ontario, should see that Ontario is being deindustrialized and it is not going to be reindustrialized by wishing that you had a national consensus or that you could go and shake hands with Conrad Black. What you are going to have to do is control where your investment goes. You are going to have to look at industry by industry and region by region. That is not an easy message to tell Canadians.
I was in Sudbury over the holidays. 1 know the Hon. Member for Rosedale will share this; he and I are both small of limb and big of heart. I felt for the workers in Sudbury. The Hon. Member knows it is hard to see people unemployed, hoping with their fingers crossed that they will go back to work. A lot of people in our traditional industries are not going to go back to work, and that is the problem. It is going to be more difficult for us to make this transition. We are going to have to change and it is going to be hard because we have so much foreign ownership in this country and we are dependent on foreign borrowing. That is the lesson of France; they were dependent on foreign borrowing and they could not make the change.
So, Mr. Speaker, we will not have any short-term, quick-fix solutions; we have to look at the long term. The United States is going to decline further. They are making a terrible mistake by investing in armaments. Believe it or not, that is against their strategic interests. They keep investing in arms; but the Japanese are not dumb, they are out there investing in new industry and producing consumer goods we use every day. This
January 21, 1983

policy of investing in arms is going further to weaken the U.S., and it will further weaken Canada.
There is a monetarist policy in the U.S., as most Members know, which is going to try to squeeze inflation by holding down the money supply and cutting back on Government spending. What they are doing is simply killing the American economy, and of course the Canadian economy, since it is a branch plant economy, is suffering as well. Ask any worker in Ontario, those who are unemployed or barely hanging on to their jobs.
Even though I believe we should be different from the U.S. we are brothers and sisters with the U.S. We have a very close relationship. I hope that a future administration in the U.S. will realize we are giving these huge advantages to Japan and Western Europe, that we are living in the past.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the six and five program. That program is really not intended to be an economic strategy at all; it is a phony political strategy. It is designed to convince Canadians that the burden of the recession is being shared fairly and that we have to blame people like civil servants in Ottawa and easy targets like that for our problems. It is not really a program with any real economic impact. Inflation is going to come down anyway; we all know that. We are squeezing the economy and there is no demand in the economy. I am not an economist, but I see one over there.


Mr. Benjamin:: Not him.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He purports to be one. The program is not going to make much difference because it does not involve any strategic attempt to strengthen Canadian manufacturing. In Japan the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked about how we welcome Japanese investment. They can have all our resources. What are we doing, Mr. Speaker? We are a hinterland of the U.S., which is part of our problem, and now we want to make ourselves a hinterland of Japan. Does that really make sense for this country?
I do not have time today to go into some of the solutions. I have spent most of my time trying to give a kind of analysis of what I think is happening. I challenge Members to deal with that analysis. I hope in days ahead, in other debates, to try and deal with the real solutions.
I would just draw the House's attention to the Bishops' solution which we have been advocating in the House. They say we have to focus on job creation, encourage technologically intensive industries, and creative work is going to be limited to a few. We have to continue with our social net for other people. But we have to look at different regions and our regional strengths, such as British Columbia and forestry. We have to build industry around the forest industry. We have to look at energy, where instead of just exporting oil and gas we have to build industry around petro-chemicals.
I am not saying that my colleagues in the Conservative Party are not interested in that; of course they are. But I am saying that their analysis is wrong. The answer is not just let us have consensus, or the Liberal answer which is let us just
Supply
welcome investment. The investments may not come no matter what you do. Investment has to be directed to areas such as high-tech industries, and to different regions of our country, to strengthen our economy. It seems to me we should level with the people. It is only in this way that we can have a national regeneration in Canada.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Hon. Member mentioned the situation in Japan, which is a very interesting example. It is a country which has been able to hold its unemployment rate to a very low level. I would ask the Hon. Member if he understands the way the Japanese system is set up and if his Party is prepared to debate seriously the kind of structural changes which would be required in this country to reach a solution such as the Japanese have reached.
For example, is he prepared to look at a system where compensation is based upon productivity, where workers opt for reduced wages when the economy turns down as a way of ensuring higher levels of employment? Is he prepared to look at a situation where a country has company as opposed to industrial unions? Does the Hon. Member agree that this should be a matter which is considered for Canada? Is he prepared to consider those realistically as options for this country if he is so impressed with the results in Japan?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. Speaking for myself, I am prepared to consider anything which is practical, logical, fair and which gives us some light at the end of the tunnel. 1 talked to David Suzuki from British Columbia, a distinguished Canadian who has written about the Japanese economy and his impressions of what was happening in Japan. I am inclined, as is the New Democratic Party, to favour the notion of a plan such as the Japanese have developed. They are not prepared to say, as it seems we in North America are, that the free market forces will do everything. I think we should look at having a strategy and know where we are going. We should look at the idea of gambling, if you like, with new industry, as I said the way the Japanese did it, and at the way the Americans, since Viet Nam, have not really done it.
However, with respect to the unions and the work and so on, I think we would be better to look to Western Europe. We are more culturally akin to Western Europe. The NDP has been saying in the House that we should look to Western Europe and their worker-business co-operation. I think that could he explored a lot more in Canada. Instead, we have kind of put labour out of the picture. The Hon. Member, in a way, was getting at that idea of bringing labour, management and Government back together. In Canada we have tended to put labour right out of the picture. One of the reasons is, I think legitimately, that labour does not believe that we are being fair to them. We are making them the scapegoat and fall guy over a lot of things.
I wanted to go further in answer to the Hon. Member's question because I think that we should look to Western

January 21, 1983
Supply
Europe and Japan, but I see it is one o'clock. I think probably I have exhausted the answer to the Hon. Member's question.


John Leslie Evans: No, you have not answered it all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
The House took recess at 1.00 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was responding to a question. I understand that question was put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) and that the answer was completed. In the remaining ten minutes of the exchange period, if other Hon. Members wish to put questions I will recognize them; otherwise I will recognize the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston).
Are there any other Members who wish to make comment or wish to put questions to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I should like to comment briefly on some of the statements made by the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party.
The Hon. Member for Rosedale began with a series of themes. I do not think anyone in the House would have much quarrel with the themes themselves or with the concerns he expressed in a sincere and, I believe, a very committed way. I must say that I am tempted to align myself with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, however, who said that he heard a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway also made the point that he and the Hon. Member for Rosedale had something in common. As I recall it, he said they were both short. I should like to say that they may both be short, but I regard both of them as Members of this House of considerable statute. I should also like to say that they are both fine spokesmen for their parties and have other things in common as well.
Perhaps one of the most striking things they have in common is that they are both progressive. Unfortunately, both are constrained in that they have to operate within the ideological limits imposed upon them by their respective Parties. Perhaps that is why they both also suffer from another common characteristic, a weakness, and that is an absence of policy.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway took issue with the Hon. Member for Rosedale on that ground, and with justification. We heard no policy from the Conservative Party but we did not hear any policy from the New Democratic Party either.


Mr. Nickerson:: We have not heard any from the Liberal Party either.


Donald James Johnston: The other thing that struck me in the comments of the Hon. Member for Rosedale was the facts upon which he often relied. I am not going to review the full range of statistics which he purported to lay before the House, but I should like to comment upon the issue of research and development.
The Hon. Member for Rosedale seems to be operating very much in history. I hope that does not mean he has joined the "conservative" part of the Progressive Conservative Party, because I have always regarded him as one of the most eloquent spokesmen of the "progressive" part of that Party. It is clear from the statistics that the Hon. Member for Rosedale has either not done his homework, has been careless, or is misinformed.
O)
He spoke about the effort of research and development in this country as being 0.9 per cent of the Gross National Product whereas, in fact, since 1977 it has been in excess of 1 per cent at all times. A target was set by this Government of achieving 1.5 per cent of the GNP by the year 1985. In 1982 we are at 1.2 per cent, very much on track, I would suggest. This accusation that there has been no concern for or no movement on the issue of research and development is simply not true.
Similarly, there have been some very encouraging developments in the industrial sector. We all know that Canadian Government laboratories have always made a very important contribution to research and development. In fact, the ratio of their research to that of the country as a whole has been unduly large, principally because of the absence of the same level of effort on the part of industry.
Recently, in 1981, that industry increased its percentage over the previous year by 26 per cent and in 1982 by 23 per cent. For all sectors as a whole we find that in 1981 the percentage increased by 20 per cent, in 1982 by 18 per cent, and our target is 20 per cent for the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I suggest that given the kind of economic situation in which we find ourselves there is nationally by this Government, by the industrial sector and by the university sector, a very real commitment to enhancing research and development in this country.
When the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) began to speak, particularly about the six and five program, I was about to say we were about to have some more "Waddell-Twaddle" in this House.
January 21, 1983


David Edward Crombie: That is as good as his song.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: I am not here to discuss songs, Mr. Speaker;
I am here to discuss the comments made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He went on in a most encouraging way, much more encouraging, I might say, than the comments made by the Hon. Member for Rosedale, because at least he provided the House with an analysis of some of the problems we have and some of the opportunities that we see.

Mr. Speaker, I may remind you that not long ago, Members of the New Democratic Party recommended a reduction in interest rates in this country. Today, the Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said in the House that Canada is part of the international environment and part of the international trade world. Perhaps he has finally realized that we cannot arbitrarily reduce interest rates in this country since we are part of an international community.

I found it very encouraging to receive finally a recognition on the part of this spokesman for the New Democratic Party that Canada is very much a part of the international world of commerce and cannot unilaterally simply reduce interest rates.
Another very encouraging point made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway was the recognition that we are in a new world; that industries in many sectors are in decline. I suggest he was telling us that he accepts the view that we are passing out of an industrial society into an information society, that these sunset industries should not be propped up, which I believe has been very much in the tradition of many spokesmen of his Party in the past. In other words, the real challenge before us is the industries of the future, not the industries of the past, and we should not disguise public employment programs through alleged industrial support in certain sectors. There is no point in being the champions of the world in a declining sport, as some observers have said, and that is the case with many industries.
Some, on the other hand, are approaching sunrise. I would say that the Hon. Member's analysis was good. Moreover, his response to the question put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) was very encouraging. When the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre asked him whether he was prepared to show the kind of flexibility and pragmatic approach to investment and job creation that has been shown in countries such as Japan, as 1 recall the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway gave a very pragmatic response to that, one not rooted in the traditional ideology of the New Democratic Party.
With that, I would like to turn very briefly to the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosedale. It reads, in part:
That this House condemns the Government for its callous disregard and tragic neglect of the dire economic and social plight of the over two million Canadians who are now unemployed-
First, we all deplore the unemployment levels with which this country is faced. But I might say again in terms of actual
Supply
facts and statistics that the last numbers in December showed that there were 1,533,000 unemployed members of the Canadian workforce on a seasonally adjusted basis. That is not a number of which to be proud. I would remind the Hon. Member for Rosedale and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway that there are almost 10 million workers unemployed in Britain, Germany, France and Italy and 12 million unemployed workers in the United States, our neighbour to the south where close to 70 per cent of our trade, our exports, go. It is not hard to imagine what an impact those circumstances in those markets have upon a country like Canada, this being a country very dependent upon exports, with approximately 30 per cent of our Gross National Product tied to that sector. But the Hon. Member talks of "callous disregard".
I thought that at the risk of taking some time on the subject I would deal with some of the programs which this Government currently has in effect to create jobs in the country.
The Bishops told us that we should be creating jobs. We recognize that we should be creating jobs. We recognize that this transitory period which we are passing through into this new technologically-oriented world of which the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway speaks does require alleviation from hardship and does require the creation of jobs.
Let me draw just a few programs to your attention, Mr. Speaker. The so-called NEED Program, the New Employment Expansion and Development Program, has created 60,000 short-term jobs. The Industry and Labour Adjustment Program has created 8,600 short-term and continuing jobs to date. What about the Work Sharing program? It has averted 80,000 lay-offs in 1982 and 53,000 lay-offs will be averted in 1983. The Canada Community Development Program has created 38,700 short-term jobs. The immediate employment stimulation project has created 16,000 short-term jobs.
The National Industrial Training Program has 51,000 participants and Summer Canada has created 54,000 summer jobs. The Unemployment Insurance job-creation program has created 26,000 short-term jobs. The Local Employment Assistance Program has created 5,500 jobs and the program for the employment disadvantaged has 18,000 participants.
The Canada community services project has created 1,600 jobs. The New Technology Employment Program has created 300 jobs and the Local Economic Development Assistance Program has created 250 jobs to date. Then there is the refinancing aid to Dome which has created 9,500 jobs. Pulp and paper modernization has created 80,000 jobs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You did not pay for those.


Donald James Johnston: The Canadian Industrial Renewal Board has created 700 jobs to date. The restructuring of Chrysler Canada, with minimum average employment as a percentage of Chrysler, U.S. Employment, is maintained. Shipbuilding Industry Assistance has created 7,500 person-years of employment. The refinancing aid to Massey-Ferguson has created
6,000	jobs. Chrysler Perkins Diesel, 1,600 jobs by 1988. There

January 21, 1983
Supply
is Maislin Trucking with 2,000 jobs, Mitel Regional Expansion with 1,700 jobs, loans to Advocate Mines, 134 jobs re-established and 366 jobs to be re-established in coming months, and fruit and vegetable storage, 150 short-term construction jobs and 250 other jobs. There are 5,500 person-years provided by new fighter aircraft. Need I go on, Mr. Speaker? I am only on page 2 and I have seven pages of job-creation programs that this Government has introduced. How can anyone in the House say that the Government has taken a callous attitude toward the plight of the unemployed? It is simply rubbish.
I understand that under these new proceedings, Members opposite are entitled to pose questions at the end of my remarks. I would be delighted to give details of any of the programs to which I have referred and supply any additional information they might wish to have with respect to other programs, which I do not have time to read since I will not finish within my allotted time. However, those are job-creation initiatives.
Let us discuss another part of this motion. The Hon. Member for Rosedale seems to have left but he suggests in this motion that this Government has not tried to forge a social and economic consensus between business, labour and Government.
[ Translation]
This is really incredible. We have been making a real effort to hold consultations, more so than ever before, and it is truly incredible that we should be accused of not communicating with all groups and sectors in our society, with the unions, the business world and the provincial governments. We have been conducting consultations across the country for many years, while the pace has been stepped up last year and this year as well.

Again, let me make reference to some of these consultative efforts since we have been accused of not forging our fences or not attempting to. Incidentally, I should say for the benefit of Members opposite that the meetings to which I am about to refer are official meetings between Ministers that are formally structured. Apart from those meetings, as the Hon. Member for Rosedale undoubtedly knows since he is a former Minister, there are many meetings and consultations held in an effort to achieve what the French-speaking people refer to as "concerta-tion" between all these sectors.
Let me cite some examples. Between March and June of 1982, leading up to the last budget, Ministers met with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada, the presidents of the stock exchanges, the Chamber of Commerce, the Conseil du Patronat du Quebec, the Canadian Petroleum Association and allied associations, the B.C. Employers Council in Vancouver, the Business Council on National Issues and selected business groups in Toronto at two separate meetings. As I recall, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) participated in those meetings. Meetings were also held with selected Atlantic Canada
businessmen in Halifax, the Canadian Labour Congress in Ottawa, the Co-Operative Union of Canada in Ottawa and then the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Ottawa.
As Hon. Members will recall, in the wake of the six and five program, in terms of continuing this round of consultation, further meetings were held with business participants in Ottawa. It was a large meeting at which the Prime Minister was present. In fact, he was present at many of these meetings. Again, there were meetings with the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Labour, the Canadian Labour Congress once again, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the housing and construction industry, the automotive industry, representatives of small business, representative groups from Quebec-based enterprises in Montreal, representative groups from high technology centres in Ottawa, the agri-food representatives, the Investment Dealers' Association once again, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, food and grocery products industry representatives and representatives of the co-operative movement. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) met with the so-called Sinclair Committee on six and five, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who I see is in the House, met with consumer groups.
Currently this year, meetings were held with the Conseil du Patronat du Quebec and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in prebudget consultations. There are meetings with the Atlantic Provincial Economic Council, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Banking Association, the Investment Dealers' Association once again, the Retail Council, the Canadian Labour Congress. And on it goes. I am lost in the number of consultations that have been held with a view to forging the very kind of consensus that this motion moved by the Hon. Member for Rosedale speaks to.
I find it quite extraordinary for-

-for the Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to be accusing us of not having held consultations and of failing to have made any effort in this respect. In fact, as I have just said, we have established consultation procedures that did not even exist before.

That being said, let me address another issue that is raised by this motion. It concerns the issue of an increasing lack of job security which threatens the livelihood and well-being of this country's remaining 10.4 million workers. I have spoken for a moment about the plight of unemployment and some of the programs that have been implemented to ease that plight. However, there are those who feel insecure about their jobs because of the high unemployment rate. It is important that this be put in a realistic context which, I would suggest to the Members of the House, can also be seen as an optimistic context.
January 21, 1983

The fears of unemployment of those still employed arise from a number of causes. First is the recession. Second is the non-competitive position referred to by the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) of some of our so-called sunset industries. Finally, of course, is the issue which was raised, 1 believe, in a question put to the Hon. Member for Rosedale concerning unemployment resulting from the evolution of Canada-revolution, perhaps-by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, as we move from an industrial society to an information society.
1 see you indicating, Mr. Speaker, that I have one minute left. It is not very much in the circumstances. I could go on about this subject at length. However, given the problem of time-
[ Translation]
As far as technology is concerned, a very important question was raised by a representative of the New Democratic Party. How we adapt to new technology will depend largely on how we react to this fear which is very widespread and very serious. However, 1 am convinced, the Government is convinced, and I hope that the other Members of this House are as well, that although the rise in productivity resulting from improved techniques will reduce the number of jobs for a time, on the other hand, new technology will reduce the number of difficult and boring jobs, and give workers a chance to do work that is less arduous and more interesting, and I do not think we should be opposed to this happening. The biggest headache is the present transition period and the very obvious problem of structural unemployment. Union leaders, business, and the federal and provincial governments must work together to ease Canadians through this transition period and allay the fears of our workers by taking joint and positive action. Once more, Mr. Speaker, consultation is tremendously important in this respect. In concluding, I should like to refer once again to the scenario proposed by the Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) which I support-

-that we are entering a new world. Frankly, I believe that no generation has faced a future as promising and possibly as prosperous as the one we face if we are prepared to throw away our death grip on the past and look forward to those industries of the future that will arise out of the renewed and new technology, and research and development that this Government is so committed to. I say that whereas the current recession brings us hardship, what we see in front of us at the same time should give us a good deal of optimism and enthusiasm. Frankly, we should all be glad to be part of the decision-making process that can make it happen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, midway through his speech, the Minister invited us to ask questions with respect to the specific job-creation programs of the Government. The Minister may or may not be aware that I have had on the Order Paper since approximately mid-November a question in which I asked for
Supply
details with respect to the immediate employment stimulation project. To refresh the Minister's memory, it was a program which had allocated to it some SI50 million.
In his comments the Minister indicated that that program now has created 16,000 jobs. I might say that so far the Government has been unwilling to answer my question. It is two and a half or almost three months old, and this is the first time I have received any information on the immediate employment stimulation program and the fact that it created
16.000	jobs.
Would the Minister advise us who is responsible for the immediate employment stimulation program? Would he be willing to provide details as to why there was not any public participation or public process by which those funds were allocated? I have been unable to find out about any public process whatsoever. The record shows that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) indicated in committee that he was not responsible for the program. He announced the program, but he said that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) may be responsible. I have been unable to find out so far who meets the allocation of the funds and by what process they are allocated. They amount to $150 million and they are not on public view. Would he answer that question?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when I said that I would provide details, obviously I can only provide the details which I have in my possession as I stand in the House. One point of clarification so as to ensure that I do not mislead anyone in the House. When I give job numbers they are the job impact of the program for the period of the program. In some cases all those jobs exist; in some cases they will exist during the period from 1982 to 1984. In the case of the immediate employment program, it is the period in which the program is in effect.
My advice is that so far this program has been allocated to 400 approved projects and that during the period 1982 to 1984
16.000	short-term jobs will be created. I might add, in responding to the question regarding the use of the term "short-term jobs" that it is very important to realize that the criteria used in all short-term job-creation programs were intended to make a contribution to the basic economic infrastructure. While the jobs may be short-term, the benefits will be long-term. I do not think anyone on this side of the House would guarantee that that will always be the case in every instance, clearly with the magnitude of the programs in front of us, but that is the thrust. I must say that the programs which have been brought to my attention tend to confirm that that indeed is the case.
As to the actual mechanics of the program, they are not under my responsibility. Clearly, it is not an issue which would fall within the Economic Development Committee. Certainly I will be pleased to take that question under advisement and try to get the answer for the Hon. Member for Rosedale.

January 21, 1983
Supply


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Minister-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I do not want to impinge on the Hon. Member but the spirit of the rules of reform, if we read the third report, was that this question period was primarily designed for people who were perhaps not of the same political mind as the speaker. I stand to be corrected. Perhaps we could refer to the report, but I believe that was the essence of it. I know the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) very well. I do not want to impinge on him. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. Another Member of the Committee is here, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party; perhaps he could deal with it. I think that was the intent and purpose of this question period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before recognizing another Hon. Member on this point of order, the first thing I should say is that the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is quite correct. I will not take this time out of the ten minutes provided for the exchange.


Walter David Baker: 1 think that is fair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Committee report indicated that the Chair should give priority during this ten-minute period to Members representing Parties other than that of the Hon. Member who had just spoken. The point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton is correct. I thought I would attempt to recognize the four Hon. Members who rose immediately following the Minister's remarks.
Hon. Members will realize that the Chair is also involved in a new procedure. It may be that I should have proceeded to supplementary questions by the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), but in fairness to the Hon. Member I recognized, I think I will persist in recognizing him for one question and then I will look to the Hon. Member for Rosedale for one or two supplementary questions. All questions and supplemen-taries are intended by the Committee report to be short and sharp, so we would look to very brief interventions. I also want to recognize Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party. I may have been in error, but I will allow the Hon. Member for Rosedale to ask one or two supplementary questions. Let us proceed in this manner as I learn how we ought best to go.


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There is also the principle that each Member of the House will be recognized in an equal manner. I think we must not forget that.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the point of order. Under normal conditions I would agree with the Hon. Member who just made the point, but on the specifics of the ten-minute question period following 20-minute speeches, it was quite clearly the intention of the Committee that to the greatest extent possible-and I am not ruling out that there may be exceptions-questions would be addressed to speakers by Members other than those of their own political Party.
In fact, we dealt with it in exactly that way, pointing out that we did not want to have an exchange between one Member and another simply to highlight the points the speaker wanted to make, or to draw out additional points from the speaker which would enable them to enlarge upon or extend their available time beyond 20 minutes.
I would say to the Hon. Member, without entering into a disagreement with him, that in all matters with the exception of the ten-minute question period we recognize the need to be fair and equitable with all three Parties. But on the ten-minute question period that was not the case, for I think the Chair will no doubt see good and justifiable reasons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have already indicated that I think it was the Chair's error to have recognized the Hon. Member to my right. Having done so, however, I think it is unreasonable to deprive that Hon. Member of the question. I will recognize him for one question and I will confirm the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to the effect that the committee report indicated that this ten-minute period is to be given, in terms of priority, to Members representing Parties other than that of the Hon. Member who just spoke. That is clear and I have indicated that it was my error. Therefore, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) for one question and then the Hon. Member for Rosedale.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will not take the time of this exchange out of the ten-minute question period-that is, the current situation where Hon. Members are rising on points of order-so that those Members who wish to enter into the exchange will have an opportunity to do so.


René Cousineau: I see that in Hansard of Monday, January 17, it says very specifically that backbenchers on the Government side will also be entitled to speak following a speech by a Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think I should answer that so that there will be no difference between the Committee report and Madam Speaker's comments. I believe the Hon. Member is quoting Madam Speaker in that regard. The point was that when an Hon. Member from either of the Opposition Parties spoke for the 20-minute period, obviously the intent of the Committee report was to give opportunity to Hon. Members on the Government side to use the ten-minute period for an exchange of questions and comment. So there is nothing inconsistent between what Madam Speaker says and what the Committee on Procedure and Organization said.
January 21, 1983

Is the Hon. Member for Gloucester rising on a point of order?


Herb Breau: On a related point of order, because it deals with the way this exchange period will work. Shall I make the comment and ask for clarification now? 1 wonder if the Chair could elucidate as to the kind of discipline that will exist. Will it be the kind that exists in the regular Question Period where questions and answers should be short? I believe the intent of the exchange period is that it be short. The experience today has been that both questions and answers have been too long. I wonder if the same discipline should apply as applies to the Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is probably not a good idea for the Chair to attempt to give hypothetical rulings, but I think I should indicate that one of the other Acting Speakers and myself have had occasion to discuss this today, that is to say, the two of us who are on duty today.
I will begin by again quoting the Committee report, which reads:
Your Committee envisages that exchanges which will take place will be short and sharp.
In an attempt to give some conceptual framework to that, my own feeling is that Members might like to consider a time period of something like one or one and a half minutes. I would say that is probably reasonable. However, today is the first time that this new rule has been applied to the operations of the House and, of course, what I have indicated as a time frame does not necessarily make it a ruling from the Chair on the subject. An example might be that some Hon. Member might find himself the only Member involved in the exchange period and he could use up the ten-minute period entirely. I would say that if one were looking for a definition of "short and sharp", one would say that one minute or one and a half minutes would be reasonable, with, of course, the opportunity for supplementaries, additional comments, depending upon other Members who may be standing and looking for recognition.
I see the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton may wish to make a comment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would be worried about the clock watching aspect of it. I am not in the least worried about the short and sharp aspect of it, because that does fit within the framework of the discussion of the Committee. I think it would be important that the House understand that the Committee and the House, by adopting the report, did expect the Speaker in the Chair at the time to exercise quite strict discipline with respect to shortness and sharpness of both questions as well as answers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think that is clear. The time is now 2.43 and there remains, if I recall correctly, approximately five minutes. To the extent that Hon. Members are now recognized, may I remind them of the comments by
Supply
Members themselves to the effect that exchanges should be short and sharp.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a very brief contribution to the point of order before proceeding to my question, the contribution being that I have no quarrel whatsoever with the point being made that priority should be given to Members of the Opposition during this question period. But it seems to me that we could follow a format that is somewhat similar to what happens during the regular Question Period where Members on the backbench of the Government side do have a rare opportunity to ask questions. They are not given priority, but they do have an opportunity once in a while. As long as that is followed, it seems to me that it will work out.
My question to the Minister is based on a comment made before Christmas-and it may have been corrected by now. The Royal Commission that was established on Canada's economic future, which is headed by Mr. Macdonald, apparently, initially at least, had not invited anyone from the high technology area to join. I am wondering whether or not that oversight has been corrected, and the Minister can inform us about that. I would appreciate any information the Minister might have on the type of co-ordination that has been established for making sure that the Provinces and ourselves are working in the same direction in so far as training is concerned for industries and careers of the future.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on the first point I think, obviously, it would be important that someone familiar with, in fact expert in, the high technology sector be involved in some manner in that Commission. That is not my responsibility. But if there is not a member on the Commission, I am sure the technology sector will make very extensive and complete representations to the Commission, as they have done in my case and I am sure with many other Ministers.
With respect to the issue of co-ordination, on the training side and, in fact, the whole technology development side, we have now, with the advent of the new Government reorganization which is yet to be adopted by this House but which, for practical purposes, we are operating under, established a mechanism which I think will be very effective in co-ordinating the federal role in technology and research and development with provincial roles and provincial priorities. The general development agreements, I hope, will be negotiated and executed as the old agreements expire and they will perhaps form the basis for an agreement with the provinces individually and with the regions as to what directions we must move in in areas of technology. Because it is absolutely clear that we cannot in this vast country fragment our efforts; we must create as much synergism as possible.
I see I am asked to shorten my comments and I will therefore sit down.


David Edward Crombie: My question will be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the comments made by Hon. Members on that

January 21, 1983
Supply
point. I simply want to make sure that the Minister understood, in answering the question which he has undertaken to do-and I appreciate that very much-the nature of my question. I am concerned, as are many others, about the process by which the $150 million has been spent. If the Minister would have a member of his staff get in touch with the Employment and Immigration Department, they would advise him that the immediate employment stimulation program is not really a program because it does not have an official application form, an official public application procedure. Most of the job-creation programs that the Minister was describing are characterized by a public application form and a public procedure, so people know how money is being spent. This particular program, at best, is shrouded in mystery, and I would like to ask the Minister to make sure I am provided with a description of the process by which the $150 million was spent.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a perfectly fair question. No expenditure of taxpayers' funds by any Government should be shrouded in mystery, and if the Hon. Member feels that it is I will try to clarify the mystery for him, although, as I say, it is not directly within my area of jurisdiction. But I will certainly raise the matter with my colleague.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short question for the Minister. In his comments I think he was reading off a long list of plusses for the Government and actions they had taken. He mentioned the Chrysler diesel plant and I do not think he really meant that. I think he is aware there is some reverse action being taken on that, and he should clarify that.
The second question I want to put to him is this. One of the difficulties I am running into in my constituency is not only that I have untrained and unskilled people applying for unemployment, but I also have a large number of trained individuals, that is, engineers, architects, certified electrical and mechanical technicians, welders, millwrights and people who have industrial skills. Some of them are going in for retraining. How we are going to retrain them is the point, and what are we going to do with those people who were at a fairly high level of income for a good number of years, and who in many cases held senior positions, but now find themselves not only unemployed but unemployable?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tie that question to my very brief and perhaps over-simplified explanation of unemployment. It is clear in the case of these skilled people to whom the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) makes reference that the recession effectively has had an impact on their companies and their jobs. As we see a turnaround in the economy, we will expect to see those skilled people certainly back as active participants in the workforce. There may be exceptions to that. The technological revolution we have talked about has created a need for different kinds of skills and training. As I mentioned, that problem has to be identified and pursued in terms of recycling, retraining and computer training. Many corporations are row doing this inhouse, such as the 3M Corporation in London, Ontario has undertaken for its employees. This is the way we have to move. People must have these new skills to take on these new challenges.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 congratulate the Minister, not that I agree with what he was saying, but for the way he said it. Also, he was prepared to engage in a debate. We had a real debate this afternoon, and 1 congratulate him for that.
What disturbs me is that industries just do not appear. Because you want a hi-tech industry in Sudbury, it is not going to suddenly appear there. People in places such as Sudbury will get short-term jobs which really do not mean very much in the long run. Private investment is not working. Is the Minister prepared to do what some other countries have done in order to compete, namely, to plan investment priorities? In other words, to commit ourselves to a planned investment economy?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. 1 said earlier that I felt from the comments we heard before lunch that the Hon. Member was not rooted in the ideology of his Party. Perhaps his true colours are showing when he talks about a planned economy. I would be the last to agree that private investment is not working. Private investment will work. It will always work when the appropriate investment climate has been created. That appropriate investment climate requires a reduction in inflation which, of course, is the purpose and point of the six and five program.
As inflation and interest rates fall, 1 have no concern about the private sector making investments in areas that are of interest to all Members of this House, certainly in terms of job creation and economic growth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should advise the House that the ten-minute exchange period has more than expired. I tried to be particularly generous with it because of the points of order that occurred earlier. It is time now that I recognize the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the foregoing discussions on procedure were essential. But it is also the wish of members of this Party to have adequate time to deal with the motion before the House, a motion which "condemns the Government for its callous disregard and tragic neglect of the dire social and economic plight of over two million Canadians''. The Minister responsible for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) appears to be leaving the Chamber. I had hoped he would stay because I want to respond to some of the remarks he made concerning his policies on science and technology in particular and industrial development in general.
Contrary to the implication and the verbiage of the Minister who just spoke, we do have a serious economic problem in Canada today. I challenge any Member of the Liberal Government to deny that there is a serious problem, far more serious
January 21, 1983

than any of the major industrialized nations which are also having difficult times.
For example, the primary metals production industry is operating at 61 per cent of capacity, the transportation equipment industry at 59 per cent, the wood and forest products industry at 51 per cent, the electrical industry at only 67 per cent, the furniture industry at 58 per cent and the mining industry at approximately 57 per cent of capacity.
The after-tax profits of Canadian corporations has fallen some 60 per cent over the last year and business and corporate bankruptcies have virtually doubled since 1980. In fact, in British Columbia the number of business and corporate bankruptcies has doubled in the last 12 months. These are all evidence of a serious economic dilemma which this nation is contending with today. This ultimately translates into economic hardship and human suffering, as reflected in the motion before the House this afternoon.
As the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) suggested, we feel in general terms there are four important initiatives that need to be taken. First, we need to forge a new bond of trust and spirit of co-operation among business, labour and government. Second, we must encourage job-creating investment. The Minister of State for Economic Development did not say anything about what the Government is going to do to reverse the absolute destruction which that Government has caused of the investment climate in Canada.
Third, we must focus on the problems of productivity and the decline of Canada's international competitive advantage which has been traditional for this country, to the point where now out of the 24 members of the OECD nations, we are rated as the country with the lowest productivity improvement record. We need a means of dealing with this question of declining productivity. We need goals and we need tools.
I was very disappointed by the rhetoric of the Minister of State for Economic Development. He talked about consultation, programs and appointments to boards, but did not tell us where we were headed. He has no sense of appreciation that this country, with all of its potential, does not present to the Canadian people the leadership, goals, objectives and climate in which individuals can have confidence and invest in this country as a reflection of that confidence.
Canada's need to restore its access to world markets is at the heart of our economic dilemma. Before the end of this century, some two-thirds of the world's population will be clamouring for all the goods, services and comforts which Canadians have come to take for granted. Two-thirds of the world's population do without all those things that we benefit from.
We have to ask ourselves why we are not tapping into that opportunity. Why have Canadians taken an isolationist attitude that we can live to provide only the needs and services of Canadians? Why do we isolate ourselves economically by closing our borders and raising tariff barriers even higher, disregarding the fact that there is a tremendous opportunity to be harnessed which will produce employment for all Canadians?
While I appreciate the current emphasis on what is called high technology and electronics sectors, people around the
Supply
world do not eat chips. They can eat potato chips which we can produce in great abundance. They certainly could use wood chips to produce paper, but not silicone electronic chips. It is an error of judgment on the part of those in powerful positions to place all of our eggs in one basket and put so much emphasis on the so-called high technology "silicone valley" mentality. That may be good for Ottawa and the immediate area, but it does not take advantage of the resources that we possess in great abundance, resources that people of the world need.
The people of the world, regardless of what self-styled experts in the House and Government may think, need food, clothing and shelter, which is made from agricultural commodities, petro-chemicals, forest products and the fishery. We in this nation and the Government in particular are totally neglecting these important sectors, totally disregarding the opportunity. We must not merely be content to continue to strip off our natural resources and export them, but to develop an industrial plan with specific goals to increase and upgrade the value added that we get out of those resources. That, Mr. Speaker, translates into jobs, and the cornerstone of realizing that opportunity is our science and technology policy. I would like to come back to that in a moment because that policy, which the Minister talks about in vague terms in terms of percentage of GNP, has to be much more comprehensive and dedicated to national objectives than anything this Government has produced in the last 14 years.
We have to ask ourselves, in looking at our mining industry, why it is that virtually every sector of the mining industry is in a severe slump, losing millions upon millions of dollars, with the iron ore shutdown at Schefferville, for example, the cutbacks in Labrador City and in the mines of Northern Ontario, or the major lay-offs in two north shore mines of the Quebec Cartier Mining Company. Falconbridge was shut down for most of last year, and the International Nickel Company is still shut down in Sudbury, with 10,000 mine workers laid off. We know why that industry is shut down, Mr. Speaker. It is because in 1950 Canada was one of the two major world producers of nickel, and with the help of the Canadian Government through its export development initiatives and CIDA initiatives, we now have 30 separate mining centres around the world mining nickel, and all but two or three of them are outside of Canada. We have cut off our own potential to continue to provide a viable income and well-being for the people of the Sudbury area because this Government has paid no attention to the decline of our international productivity and to the dangers of a growing surplus of world producers in that sector.
We have the case of the Cyprus Anvil Mining Company which has for years produced lead and zinc, shipped it by the White Pass & Yukon Railway to Japan where it goes into the Japanese automobiles. We have now a Government which has promised, since last October 5, to provide some means of overcoming the mismanagement of that company, after having

January 21, 1983
Supply
forced the sale of that company from the original owners, known as Amoco, into the hands of Dome. And we know what a great performance record Dome has shown in recent months to the detriment and to the great financial burden of all Canadians. Now Dome, with the complicity of the Government, apparently wants to kill the mining industry in the Yukon, to close down the Cyprus Anvil Mine. They shut down the railway last week and we are told that with the cumulative snow pack it will not be possible to open that railway for at least six months. Meanwhile, the Japanese customers for that lead and zinc have found other countries to supply them that material. The contracts have not been fulfilled by Dome Mines. And we have a couple of thousand people in Faro in the Yukon who are losing hourly their entire future because of the inaction of this Government.
With respect to the Pine Point Mine in the Northwest Territories, another producer of lead and zinc, 50 per cent of that lead and zinc goes to the large smelter at Trail, British Columbia, Canada's oldest smelter. The federal Government has allowed Pine Point to be shut down because of labour problems, but primarily because the products just cannot find a market out there on a cost-productive basis. It cannot compete because of the burdens of taxation, energy costs, and all of the other factors which have prevented our Canadian mining industry from continuing to enjoy the markets which they have traditionally enjoyed.
To give an example of the value of upgrading our resources, Mr. Speaker, in terms of jobs created, it should be evident to Hon. Members of this House that if you shut down the mine at Pine Point where there are maybe 500 employees, you risk shutting down the smelter at Trail which employs some 8,000 workers because you no longer provide the feed stock for that mine. That should show the tremendous advantages in enhancing and upgrading the value of our national resources, and also the tremendous, implicit dangers in mismanaging our industry, or at least over-taxing them and burdening them with high energy costs, and a lack of Government support and encouragement for investment in this country through such measures as the October 12 budget. As a consequence, we are seeing our entire industrial infrastructure crumbling in this country. I was very disappointed that the Minister of State for Economic Development did not address this question.
In the case of coal, we have four or five major coal producers in Alberta and British Columbia all shutting down, or already shut down, and we have a major investment, including participation by the federal Government in the Northeast coal development, and no market for that coal.
Last week we saw that the Balmer Mines at Sparwood, British Columbia has laid off another 1,900 employees, essentially eradicating the economic base for another Canadian community. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on returning from his globetrotting tour to Japan and the Pacific Rim, cannot tell us what he has done to improve our ability to market coal in the Far East. What has he done to address the problem we have with Japan producing highly industrialized products which we have imported over rr-cent years, high
quality products produced by very productive industries? We have not been able to find a way to negotiate with the Japanese a mutual trade agreement under which we would do more secondary upgrading of those products. In return, we would want to increase our sales of coal, lead, zinc, nickel and iron ore to our good Japanese friends who are so important to us in Western Canada. This Government has been dilly-dallying for months while it has seen our international resources crumble and our industries, at the same time, going without production because they have not been able to negotiate opportunities to build new plants in order to expand.
That brings me to the second important theme of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and that has to do with the fact that we in Canada must put a much higher priority on research and development, on applying new technology. To speak about a goal of 1.5 per cent of GNP by 1985 just shows the Minister's absolute ignorance of the demonstrated value of science and technology and the important goal it plays as the underpinning element of an over-all industrial plan. It is not a matter of the Government having to take over industries, and control, manipulate and redistribute their earnings. It is merely a matter of the Government recognizing the multiplier effect which comes into play when we make an adequate investment in research and development.
It is a fact that in 1969 Canada's investment in research and development was 1.5 per cent of its GNP. By 1980 it had dropped to .9 per cent of its GNP. The Minister has nothing to brag about, therefore, when he talks about having raised it to 1.2 per cent of the GNP by 1982. That is an appalling performance, Mr. Speaker, when we realize that Japan presently spends 2.8 per cent of its Gross National Product on research and development, and its target is 4 per cent. I would like to give an illustration of how important this is. The President of the National Research Council, reporting to the committee about a year ago, talked about a study which was done in the late seventies of the benefits accruing from the expenditure of federal money on research and development programs through the Industrial Research Assistance Plan. This plan is terribly under-funded, but over that period they tracked what the return was to Canada after having spent $100 million, roughly, on research and development. There was a seven to tenfold increase in the return in the earnings which the companies developed out of those research projects. There was over $1 billion of earnings from companies whose economic bases were the research projects which cost $100 million. The tax revenues which flowed back to Government in that period were $350 million, or three and a half times as large as the initial investment.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that the less we spend on research and development in this country, the fewer jobs we are going to have, and the more priority we give it, the more opportunity we are going to give to our young people. The situation in Canada is appalling, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the case of Japan, which produces eight times as many engineering graduates per capita as British Columbia
January 21, 1983

and four times as many as all of Canada, when we look at their industrial development and the progress they are making, when we look at the benefits to their young people and the healthy attitude between labour and management, the desire to work together for the betterment of the nation. And it all started with a Government which was prepared to make a commitment to invest in research and development.
It is a fact this Government is preoccupied with the redistribution of income. We are redistributing more than 50 per cent of income earned by Canadians, and half of that goes to social and cultural programs. I think these are all very worthy initiatives but I have to make the point that if we cannot put more than 1.5 per cent of our GNP into R and D, yet spend more than 50 per cent on social programs, then we are perpetrating on Canadians the greatest social injustice of all. That, Mr. Speaker, is the injustice of unemployment, of a desperate Government creating short-term programs which fit nowhere within a framework of long-term goals. The Government creates gimmicky, alphabet soup programs. As the Minister himself implied when he listed off all the jobs to be created, virtually all of them are examples of temporary jobs. This whole notion of a temporary solution is at the heart of this Government's ineptitude, and it must be changed. I am afraid that change will only come with a change to a Progressive Conservative Government.
We should not continue to fritter money away on short-term programs such as NEED, CCDP, SRF and SDP and all these other things, without recognizing that the jobs created are temporary. In fact, under the NEED and the CCD programs most of the people who get those jobs are people who have no particular skills. Yet if you look at the unemployment statistics, the people who are lining up in droves at UIC offices are people who have lots of skills such as carpenters, machinists, electricians, chemical and civil engineers.
I am told there are no engineering projects on the drawing boards of the major consulting companies in this country. That tells us that four years from now there will not be any new plants irrespective of all the gobbledygook of the Minister of State for Economic Development. We are frittering money away on programs designed to rake grass over the wintertime, using UIC exhaustees. I know they need work, but I am saying that our priorities are misplaced. If an engineering company is working, then there are contracts being let. There is work for carpenters, concrete men, form makers, miners, and then there is work for teachers and storekeepers. That is the multiplier effect, Mr. Speaker. But if we dump the limited resources we have-in fact, they are just deficit dollars-into temporary initiatives, then we are not investing those limited resources in the right direction. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is high time this Government recognized that this important change of priority is essential within a framework which encourages investment and private sector participation. We must get away from this bail-out mentality and realize that private individuals in this country will move ahead at a great pace if only the Government of Canada would get off their backs.
Supply


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question. I found the remarks of the previous speaker very interesting. He spoke a lot about Japanese technology and investment by their Government into research and development. I found that fascinating because I have done a lot of reading in that area myself. But one thing he mentioned early on rather puzzles me. He was complaining that our Government is putting too much emphasis on and too much money into advance technology in our country. I would like to ask him where he gets that kind of information because all the studies I have seen, like the Science Council of Canada and others, have said that in comparison with the Japanese, Americans, French, Germans, Austrians and others, we are putting less public money into advance technology, and one of the problems we are going to have today and tomorrow because of the rapid change of technology in our society is that we will not be competitive with these other societies now starting to restructure and retool. That is what I get from all the studies I have seen, and that is what we have been told by people who have studied the area. The Hon. Member is now telling us the opposite, and I wonder if he can enlighten us as to where he gets that information from.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I am happy to respond, Mr. Speaker, because I think the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) somewhat misconstrued what I was saying. I was saying people cannot eat microchips. There are many, many nations around the world which can produce integrated circuits and electronic gadgets more cheaply than we can. I am not speaking against the Telidon concept or automatic process control in industry. I am very conscious of the important role that technological innovation and development will play in the future. It will provide opportunity to all Canadians.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that our strength must be in the application of those technologies, not in developing another whole range of some computers or another Challenger jet to sell to major corporations around the world. Our priority has been misplaced in deciding we could not think big in terms of technology or production; we had to produce excellent products in small numbers, like the Candu reactor.
I think we made a lot of bum decisions over the last 15 years because of incompetent leadership from the Government, and the scientific community to some extent, in directing us along the lines they have. I think we should harness the resources we have in greatest number and use high technology to make those available to the people of the world. I am talking about mining and forest machinery, special purpose transportation vehicles, electric commuter cars and rapid transit systems. I am talking about modular home designs which can be exported everywhere in the world. I am talking about water systems, sewage disposal systems, all highly sophisticated in terms of their technological application. We are second to none in the world. We have the unique expertise to produce those because we have a history of that kind of thing. We can marry our natural resources and our engineering expertise to high technology in order to harness a market, fuels and feedstocks from coal; LNG fueling systems, because we use natural gas in
22108

January 21, 1983
Supply
various ways more heavily than any other country in the world. We talk about exporting the gas; what about the systems which will use it? I am referring to such systems as electrically powered locomotives, special purpose paper products, agricultural products, drugs, medical diagnostic equipment, or industrial automation systems. I am talking about using that high technology, not just bragging about having a silicon valley of the north here in the Ottawa area to compete with Stanford or MIT or something like that. That is a very narrow application of the concept of high technology; 1 am talking about something much larger than that.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have a chance to enter into this debate. This is not a unique or unusual debate. Rather, it is along the same lines we have had on so many occasions since 1 was elected a Member of this House. I am sure it is a familiar theme to a great many Members, and it touches on an area we are all concerned with.
1 think 1 have done this before, but I would like to again issue a challenge to my colleagues in the House. In debates such as this we try to get down to an analysis of the fundamental problems facing the country. We try to put aside the rhetoric and discuss the reasons for our problems. I know some Members will say, as the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) is doing right now, that the reasons for the problem are the Government. Mr. Speaker, that is pure nonsense.. There are fundamental structural problems in our society which we will have to come to grips with if we are to return to a sustained prosperity.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have had 15 years to do that.


John Leslie Evans: We have to get down to the fundamental question of why we have inflation in our society; why we have low productivity and chronically high unemployment, and probably, most important of all, why we have unemployment of our youth running in the range of 25 per cent, and what implications this has for our ability to provide advanced social services in the future, or even maintain the level we now enjoy. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that until we really start to come to grips with and debate seriously in this House those fundamental questions and causes of our problems, only then, it seems to me, are we going to be able to begin to find solutions which can be implemented by Government.
It is not good enough to stand here simply and blame Government-to say that it is the Government's fault, that the Government has not done this or the Government has not done that. I believe that all Members of the House understand that that is not good enough. The people of the country understand that that is just shadowboxing, just the political rhetoric of the House of Commons. They are becoming more and more disenchanted with all of us because they do not see us coming to grips with the problems that are of greatest concern to them. They see us standing in the House yelling at one another, pointing the finger and saying that the blame lies here
or there. Assessing blame does not do any of us any good and it does not help people with their problems.
If we are to come to grips with the real problems raised by the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), we have to be willing to traverse a field that is full of sacred cows that we have been unwilling to deal with. We are going to have to deal with some fundamental social issues that we have not been willing to deal with in the past, because they are socially explosive.
An issue we are addressing in another area of debate is that of capping the indexing of certain social programs. I believe that is the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker. That issue will not go away after the six and five program has been fully implemented. We will have to come to grips with problems such as the intergenerational transfer of funds. It will not be good enough, when the Government tries to come to grips with them, if the response of other Members of the House is to try to make political mileage out of the fundamental issues that have to be dealt with.
At some point in the very near future, if we are to put the recession back on track, we are going to have to come to grips with special interests. We are going to have to step on some toes. If we do not do this together, I do not think we are going to find a Government that is willing to take these hard decisions but if they are not taken, the country will go down the drain.
It seems to me that these are the issues on which the people expect leadership. Where do we want to go as a nation? What is the model of where we want to go? What kinds of major, hard decisions do we have to take to get there? We cannot get there without taking hard decisions. If the Government tries to take some of those hard decisions and receives nothing but condemnation from the other side of the House, then it is going to be very reluctant to take them. I do not care whether it is a Conservative Government, a New Democratic Government or a Liberal Government, it is going to be very reluctant to face those problems. I think we have to start pulling together.
The Hon. Member for Rosedale said that we have to build a national consensus. I agree with him but to do so, we have to build a national consensus in this House of Commons. We can show leadership in building a national consensus. We represent the nation. If we cannot develop a national consensus on how to come to grips with the problems, how can we expect the people of the country to develop a national consensus? It seems to me that we have to come to grips with that.
1 think we must begin with the notion that we can only have a rising standard of living if we are willing to become more productive. The Government does not have a bottomless trough. It is no use Members of the Opposition or Members on this side demanding that Ministers put more money in our ridings, not take money from our constituents but from someone else's constituents, yet that is the kind of thing we hear all the time. It puts the Government and Ministers in the position that no matter what they do, they are roundly condemned on all sides.
January 21, 1983

There are other issues here, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has been diligently trying to come to grips with problems regarding the western rail transportation system and the Crow rate issue. I can assure you that if things do not change, that will become the monumental political football of the decade. Not only need it not become a political football, but it should not. If that does happen, however, we will probably forgo the development of an efficient rail transportation system in the west. Western economic development will suffer and the nation will suffer. I think it is time we started to think of a consensus on that subject instead of trying to find ways of condemning the Minister.
We have to come to grips with the fundamental issue that workers cannot demand more than is justified by their productivity, and that no amount of monopoly power granted to labour unions can justify demands for more. We have to come to grips with the fact that management cannot expect more than it is willing to give and cannot expect loyalty from workers if, when things get tough, those workers are thrown out of work. I do not think that owners of capital can have higher profits during the good times and not expect to share the burden during the bad times.
Those are the kinds of issues that I think have to be debated, Mr. Speaker. How can we come to a national consensus where workers share in profits through good times and also bear their share, across the board, in the lowering of incomes of bad times? It only delays the day of reckoning for any group to run to the Government for protection from competition or to ask for more monopoly power to protect their position within the domestic economy. I guarantee that such action will intensify the severity of adjustments that have to be made in future. It does not put off the day of reckoning, but just makes things harder when we have to face them.
The symptoms of this have been growing during the decade of the seventies. Collectively, we have been unwilling to come to grips with these problems, and now they have come upon us in full force in the worst recession of the past 50 years. The symptoms were present in this country, in the United States and in western Europe, but the political system was unable to face the facts and make the hard social choices that should have been made if we are to move forward.
Inflation was a warning. It was a sign that we were trying to live beyond our means. That is what inflation is, Mr. Speaker. Inflation is the automatic adjustment mechanism of the economic system which is trying to bring incomes into line with output.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is what Mackenzie King said and he was wrong too.


John Leslie Evans: That is precisely what it is. It is the signal. The answer to this fundamental fact of life is that the system is trying to adjust. One reaction to this was to index.
Indexation is a very interesting phenomenon, Mr. Speaker. It protects those who need protection most. That is fine, but as the indexation system spreads, it implies that the system is going to adjust and reduce incomes to fall in line with output. It implies that those who are indexed are going to be immune to inflation. For those who are not indexed it implies that they
Supply
are going to pay a heavier and heavier price. The group that was not indexed during the last 10 or 15 years of high inflation, that is, the people who put their money in savings or invested in plant and equipment, have been devastated by inflation, along with others. That is one reason why there is not more investment in this country. The real return on investment and risk taking has been devastated by inflation, while other incomes have been protected. Our personal income tax system was indexed. Our social system was indexed. We had indexation in other areas, but the system still had to adjust to excess demands and it put it all on to the part that was not indexed. That is unacceptable for the future. We have to ensure that the burden of our readjustment is fairly shared throughout the system and that no one integral part of our system bears such an enormous burden of those adjustments that they simply disappear.
We can adjust quickly and equitably to the changes that are going to be necessary in the future or we can respond to the kinds of cries from special interest groups that we have heard so many times in the past. We can adjust slowly and painfully.
I am afraid right now that the process we are going through is an example of the latter. It is a slow, painful, adjustment process that we are going through where a great many people are being devastated as a result of the fact that our system has a built in structural rigidity that will not allow that adjustment except on the backs of certain classes of our society.
Let us examine one aspect of the compensation system. I heard the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), for whom 1 have great respect, talking about the Japanese system. I am not touting the Japanese system, but I would like to put forward a hypothesis. In the main, the Japanese system has a very interesting system of compensating. There are differences, but the basic system of compensation is a relatively low fixed wage rate and a very generous bonus system based on productivity and profitability over and above. During good times the profitability and the profits of the firm are shared equitably with the workers. During bad times the variable part of the wage is reduced. The fixed component is low enough that the firm's cost structure reduces during those times. It can stay in business and does not have to throw workers out of their jobs to cut costs.
Another thing that a compensation structure based upon productivity and upon a fair and equitable sharing of profits does is that it leads to the kinds of so-called cultural things that we have seen in the Japanese system that I do not think are cultural at all. They are economic, quality circles. If you, as a worker, benefit from the productivity and profitability of the firm, you, therefore, have an incentive to ensure that everything that can be done to improve the competitiveness and the profitability of that firm is going to happen. It leads you to work co-operatively with your fellow workers on the production line. If they work better and you work better as a team, the firm is more efficient and more profitable. As a

January 21, 1983
Supply
result you get more. It also has the same effect between labour and management. If labour and management work co-operatively, the company is more efficient and more profitable. The company makes more money, and not only do the managers and owners take profits, which is the way our system works, but the workers share in those profits.
In our system we have an adversarial relationship, a compensation system which says that we will establish relatively high fixed wage rates, as high as we can fix them, and there is a monopoly power afforded to unions and to the companies. But the power of the unions to extract the highest possible fixed wage is seen as a laudable objective.
This does several things. First, given that you have a high fixed wage rate, the incentive to work together co-operatively with your colleagues on the production line or between management and labour is not there. Indeed, you can turn it around. How do you get more compensation once you have a high fixed wage rate? You work less, and so it leads to featherbedding-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is hogwash.


John Leslie Evans: It leads to a situation where you rate bust because the compensation system allows you to increase your personal satisfaction by reducing the work effort for the fixed wage. It also creates a situation where when things get bad the company has to reduce its costs for survival, and the only way it can do that is by sloughing off workers. Instead of equitably sharing the reduction in income that is required by tough times, the system demands that a few workers get thrown out of work, so a few get thrown out to bear the entire income loss that we should all be sharing fairly and equitably. It leads to adversarial relationships between labour and management. If management can screw more productivity out of the workers, who benefits from higher profits? Management and the owners do. The workers do not benefit at all.
What is the incentive for the workers to put out as much as management would like to see them put out? There is none. As a result there is confrontation and an adversarial relationship. Those are the kinds of structural problems I am talking about.
The compensation system, something which is fundamental, is how we reward the people in our society for putting forth effort, and I suggest to you that we are doing it wrong in our society. I would suggest that the cultural system in Japan is not what has led to their good labour-management relations. It is just a sane and sensible compensation system. People who work share in the good things that come from their work; workers, managers and owners.
We have to look at some changes to our Labour Code and some changes to the way we do things in this country if we want to have that kind of co-operative relationship here that we see in some other countries.
I believe I have one or two minutes left in the time allotted to me. One of the most fundamental problems this system breeds is the problem we are facing with youth unemployment. We have a system where within our union structure the
seniority system rules. Here we have 25 per cent youth unemployment. When the young people try to get work, if they are hired they are the last ones in and the first ones out when we have an economic downturn. To try to compensate for that we have tried to build all kinds of other things into our system. We have put in minimum wage laws and all kinds of factors to offset or to try to boost the incomes. We put taxes on employment for the business so we put in disincentives for the business people to hire young people because they are unskilled, and we put in disincentives for them to seek employment through the relatively generous social programs. We will wind up in a situation in five or ten years where we will have a very large number of people in their thirties with no job experience, no skills, and no hope. These are the kinds of fundamental issues that I am talking about with which we will have to come to grips in debates in this House of Commons. I put that challenge to my colleagues on the other side of the House.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member, but before I do, I would be remiss if I did not offer my congratulations to him for what I thought was an exceedingly good speech. I might say it was a very courageous one. I know that I speak for a number of people who are here in the Chamber. It was an outstanding speech.
The Hon. Member indicated that now is the time to reassess some assumptions that we have had in the past. Does the Hon. Member support social programs being based on need or on the principle of universality?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the issues which I think has to be debated in this House of Commons fairly and openly, not with any political malice behind the scenes. There are two sides to that issue. Certainly your resources go further when you use a selective system, but you also create some very real social problems by doing that. A stigma is associated with those programs as well as the need to police very seriously the program that exists. Universal programs move away from that but at the cost of a much higher resource allocation to the program.
I have supported universal programs. At one time I was in favour of a guaranteed annual income which, by its very nature, wdl be selective if it is run through a system. I have had serious second thoughts about that as a result of some experiments which have been carried out in the United States and in Winnipeg with regard to a guaranteed annual income.
At this time I tend to favour universal programs because of the negative aspects of selectivity. As we get into a position where our resources to provide help and the best possible support to those in the greatest need become more limited, we will certainly have to come to grips with the question of selectivity versus universality. I would welcome hearing the views of other Hon. Members in a very serious debate on that question in the House of Commons.
January 21, 1983


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, from that answer, it is obvious that the Hon. Member does not know which side of the fence he is on. All the debate in the world will not extract a decision from Members if they cannot answer questions.
I have three short questions. The Hon. Member implied that it is not only the blame of the Government, but that we are all to blame. Does that suggest that he denies the responsibility to provide leadership, or does he believe that this Government has been providing the leadership required by this country? Second, he placed great emphasis on the deindexing initiatives of the Bills presently before the House as if this were the Government's most important initiative for coming to grips with our serious economic crisis. Does he believe that the most important initiatives which merely reduce the incomes of all Canadians equally will solve the structural problems and attitudinal problems in our society?
Since he dwelled on productivity and the deficiency of a compensation system, I would like a specific answer as to what particular legislative steps and consultative steps the Government has taken to overcome that problem. Does he feel that the Government is taking those initiatives which he would advocate? Let us hear some real answers for a change.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the six and five initiatives, 1 think it is extremely important. I would say to the Hon. Member that that program has formed the basis for the establishment of a national consensus on the need for Government action as well as some agreement on the nature of that need. 1 am not saying that it is a be-all and end-all but it has allowed us to establish some form of national consensus upon which we can build in the future. We have to expand on that national consensus, which is the very theme the Hon. Member for Rosedale was trying to build upon in his initial comments. I think the Hon. Member would agree that the beginning of a national consensus was formed around that six and five program. 1 think it has to be nourished further, and I hope he would have some comment on that.
I told the Hon. Member my position with regard to the question of universality. At this time I am in favour of universality because of the negative aspects of selectivity. I am not saying that this is the route the country will have to take in the final analysis. That debate certainly must be entered into. I do not believe that I am copping out at all. At this time I favour universality.
The last question asked by the Hon. Member concerned productivity and compensation. 1 would suggest to him that this issue, which was raised in questions 1 asked during my speech, has not been raised in the House before. I am in the process of raising those issues with my colleagues on this side at the present time. Today, I have raised those issues with my colleagues on the other side of the House. Therefore, the Government has obviously not introduced policies to deal with them. That is not to say that 1 am the only one who has contemplated these issues. However, I have not heard debate on them before. I welcome the Hon. Member's contribution to that debate, should he decide to contribute.
Supply


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's constituency includes Parliament Hill. I wish that we had a Member for Parliament Hill in particular, namely, the Speaker, due to the manner in which employees are treated here, with lay-offs and the type of salaries they receive.
When the Hon. Member talked about indexing-which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) bragged about instituting because of its protection for those who cannot defend themselves against the ravages of inflation-he complained that it installed a structural rigidity. We now have 6 per cent and 5 per cent limits on pensions of Public Service and Crown corporation wages and salaries.
Would the Hon. Member tell us his view on implementing 6 per cent and 5 per cent on professional fees such as those of doctors, lawyers and chartered accountants? Is he prepared to say that under the next budget, 100 per cent of any increase in income over 6 per cent will get taxed back? Is he also prepared to say that management fees, management perks and consultant fees will also get taxed back 100 per cent for anything over 6 per cent?
Since he wants to do away with this structural rigidity, will he say that dividends, what he calls the owners of the private sector, will be held to 6 per cent and 5 per cent and the surplus profits will be reinvested into the economy?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member knows as well as I do that questions dealing with prices are not something that this Government can bring down in a budget.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I never used the word "prices".


John Leslie Evans: The prices charged by doctors and lawyers. Those are outside of this Government's jurisdiction as he knows from the A1B period. It was done with the consent of the provincial Governments. We have been told quite clearly that the provincial Governments will not support any form of mandatory wage and price controls. Quite frankly, I do not support mandatory wage and price controls. I do not believe that they work. It is just another rigidity built into the system which is compounded on top of other rigid programs.
When we were talking a moment ago about the necessity to consider how we determine who takes what out of the system, I was not only talking about the workers. I talked about the managers and the owners, and I suggest that if you review what I said, Mr. Speaker, you will find that 1 was equally concerned about both sides, labour and management and capital and labour. We have to find a better way to split the rewards since it is not being done well at this time. That was the theme I was trying to make.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Hon. Member a question. He stated that the country had to make some hard choices. There has been an implicit criticism of the Government in terms of a myriad of policies on which the Government has not made tough choices.
The Science Council of Canada in its report entitled "Threshold Firms: Backing Canada's Winners" said that

January 21, 1983
Supply
backing the winners seems like a good objective for an industrial policy, but Canada's policies over the past years have been directed far more to propping up the losers in troubled or dying industries. Is my hon. friend advocating, either personally or on behalf of whomever he is speaking for today, that we should prop up, assist and support the high technology industries and other industries which are perceptibly emerging as winners and forget or withdraw support for the textile industry which is apparently losing and dwindling in Canadian industry, the automobile industry which is apparently in great difficulty at this point, and the small parts manufacturing industry which is apparently in great difficulty? Is he advocating that type of industrial strategy with that kind of tough choice? In other words, does he agree with the general thesis of the Science Council of Canada?


John Leslie Evans: Basically, my response to that would be, no. To my understanding, the Science Council of Canada advocates an industrial strategy in which the Government would select winners and losers, cause the losers to go under and support the winners. While that is very laudable and sounds good-and basically it is what governments have tried to do-we wind up with a strategy which does exactly the opposite because in trying to help the winners someone has to decide. I would rather have the market decide and then have the Government assist society to make the transition. By looking at such things as the compensation system and job security, we would be much better able to help people affected by industrial relocation and dislocation than we are under the current system. Rather than propping up, let us help people, not the companies.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Opposition motion today because it focuses on some very real problems in the country. The motion of the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) outlines the callous disregard and tragic neglect of the dire economic and social plight of over 2 million Canadians who are unemployed today. Also it expresses concern for those Canadians whose jobs are at risk today.
The motion sets out five steps to restore the social and economic health of Canada, that is, by forging a social and economic national consensus, encouraging job creating investment, establishing a national productivity strategy and rebuilding the confidence of individual Canadians as they look into the future to what the country has in store for them.
The social impact of what is happening today is a very real one for all Members of Parliament. I should like to refer to some letters I have received from constituents who have been very seriously affected by today's slowdown.
The first one is from a fourth year chemical engineering student who indicated that due to the present economic situation it appeared that he would unable to find suitable employment in Canada. He is looking to pursue his career outside the country. A great sense of loss was expressed in the letter on the part of the young man who devoted 17 years of his life to educate himself and now finds that there is no work.
Another was from the mother of a 16-year old young man who was unable to find employment. She indicated that her son, Joseph, wanted to work, that he would work at anything, that he just wanted to be working. She said that he haunted Manpower offices and scoured every available newspaper but that each time the answer was the same; "We will have to let you know". Also she indicated that she was worried about her son, that he might be on the borderline of crime. This lady has a great sense of frustration and concern because her son desperately wants to find work but is unable to do so. That last letter was from a young man who began his first post-secondary job a few months back and three months later was laid off. He has now found a job but it took him 3.5 months to find it. Upon reading the letter the sense of cynicism and despair is very clear about the way things are going. It is not only indicative of the situation with which he is faced, because he found a job, but of a number of his friends who have been unable to find work.
Also I should like to refer to a very poignant experience about a lady who came to Canada from Poland 17 years ago. She had worked diligently, not in a high-paying job, at something which was able to give her a means on which to get by and have a roof over her head. She was able to save and buy her own home, but for the past nine months she has been unable to find work. She has looked everywhere. She said something to me which was very important. She said that she came from Poland to Canada because she wanted to be independent and to have that sense of self-reliance that she could control her own destiny, own her own home and not have to rely upon Government. Now she desperately wants to find a job so that she can have self-reliance, and she cannot find it. She thinks she will have to turn to the Government. She does not want to do that. She does not want to lose her independence which was her primary objective in coming to Canada 17 years ago.
All Members of Parliament are experiencing these same things. For this reason we have to take seriously the intent and the direction of the motion before the House. It is imperative that Government Ministers listen carefully. Also it is imperative that those who are not present today read carefully the speeches that have been made. I think a very clear consensus has developed in the speeches 1 heard, and I think I will contribute to that consensus in some of my remarks.
Let me look at what has happened over the past little while, the experience to date and the outlook over the next few months. We need only look at the OECD economic outlook for Canada. It does not hold a very promising future for Canada over the next 12 months. It predicted marginal GNP growth, increased unemployment, a fiat consumer market and unfavourable business fixed investment. Also it indicated that it appeared unlikely that a significant recovery in activity would occur during the projection period. The prospects are for some further fall in the volume of consumer outlays as continuing high unemployment will militate against a significant reduction in the level of savings. People are saving their money
January 21, 1983

because they are worried about their jobs. They are worried about the future and whether they will be able to maintain their homes and automobiles. This is why people are not spending today.
Since the level of unemployment will continue at the 13 per cent level, the outlook today is bad. It was bad all last year when OECD told us that Canada ranked twenty-fourth out of 24 industrialized countries. We are at a point today where we must take stock. We must understand where we are today and where we can go from here. I believe that over the past 30 years or so we have become less and less self-reliant, less inclined to seek the solutions we need but more inclined to look much more to Government. I believe this is the heart of the economic malaise of today.
Governments-not just the Liberal Government which has been in power for a good part of this period, but also a number of provincial Governments-have moved steadily away from the position where after the war economic growth and performance was the number one priority, to the point where there are a number of other competing factors which are usually described under the very seductive heading of "quality of life". In some cases they enjoy equal rank with economic performance and in other cases they have a higher ranking. We have reached a point where we must re-establish economic growth as the number one objective. We must never lose sight of those quality-of-life objectives. We must do our utmost to maintain that. In future we must constantly remind ourselves it is only through a healthy and growing economic climate that we can enjoy and maintain our quality of life. We must realize that it is conditional upon our success in achieving sustainable economic growth, higher levels of employment and stability in prices and interest rates. We must start now by establishing some new objectives and some new priorities for the country. I am not advocating any wrenching change in the system. Our economic system is basically sound. Nor am I proposing some sentimental return to the good old days, because I think we all know economically and politically that simply it is not possible. So my first objective for our country, and a very simple one, is to try to do a little better economically than our dominant trading partner, the United States. I stated this in one of my first speeches, after I was nominated for election in my riding some five years ago, and I must say that in the intervening period I have had serious second thoughts as to whether that was the right objective because that country was not doing as well as I thought it should do. But now that I see it improving and in many cases surpassing our economic performance, I think that is an appropriate objective for us to follow.
How should we measure this? I think we should be designing our economic policies to do just a little bit better than they do, in our economic growth, our performance with respect to inflation, employment growth, unemployment levels and in the whole performance of our competitive position, the value of our dollar.
Supply
As a second priority I believe we should establish a sound economic performance as our primary policy objective. Again, to repeat myself, while I would never relegate those quality of life objectives to a secondary position, I believe we must realize that these objectives are only obtainable on an ongoing basis if we enjoy a healthy economy. But put in its simplest terms, I may feel, and you may also feel, Mr. Speaker, that a cottage by a quiet lake in the country is the utmost in the quality of life, or a trip to Florida in the middle of winter, when it is cold as it is right now. But if we do not have the means to afford these things, if our economic performance is not good enough, our idea of the quality of life will bankrupt us, or at least will rob us of the necessities that we do need. That is the position that Canada has reached today.
My third priority is the key element in achieving the first two. This goes right back to the basis of the Opposition motion today. We must recognize that the way to achieve these goals is to build a social and economic consensus among our national partners, the provincial Governments, labour, business and the long-suffering, average Canadian.
I listened very carefully to what the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) was saying about his idea of the importance of achieving that national consensus, because I believe that the Ministers on their side of the House in recent years have done their best not to try to build that national consensus. Our federal leaders have tried to govern through confrontation and conflict. I just remind you, Mr. Speaker, about the recent trip of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when, in response to a very simple question about the importance of human rights in trade negotiations, rather than answer that in an unprovocative way, deliberately tried to provoke-and I would say he could not help it because of his nature-a very important element in that debate. Because he has provoked those people, the people who hold, very sincerely and emotionally, a sense of the importance of human rights in these countries and the desire to link these two, it has made the ongoing debate on improving either, one, the human rights performance, or two, the trade performance, of these countries much, much more difficult.
I am not so naive, Mr. Speaker, as to expect that relations will change overnight. Nor do I expect our future relations between the different national bodies will be totally without conflict. But let us look at Japan, to which many have referred in the House this afternoon. Japan has succeeded through cooperation and through national consensus. The experts say this is just not possible in Canada, that the federal Government could just never achieve the strength that the Japanese leaders have been able to achieve. But because they say that, because we have a very diverse country, is that any reason why we should deliberately take the reverse approach and govern in a way which deliberately provokes differences and confrontation? That is the attitude that must change and it is the attitude which must change at the top, with the federal Government and with the Cabinet, if we are ever to come close to achieving the national consensus and policy so many of us

January 21, 1983
Supply
have talked about this afternoon and which is so important in meeting the very tough international world today.
My fourth objective must arise out of the conclusion which must be reached by national consensus. We must accept the fact that Government policy must build self-reliance. We must reverse the growing trend to more reliance on Government. Canadians, both individuals and business, must not constantly turn to Government for support and for a bail-out, and Governments must say no more often and must explain fully and honestly to Canadians why they are saying no.
Canada today is in a serious economic recession, and in this environment it is natural to expect that many Canadians will be looking more to Government for help. But we are also in a period of major industrial transition. People will lose their jobs; companies will go bankrupt, for reasons which are primarily related to this changing environment. The world is changing and it is changing fast. Many Canadians will adjust and they will make it through, but many will not. And the role in Government in this instance is not to bail out companies or to sustain jobs which can no longer be supported. Canadians understand that this change is upon us. We must accept it. We must adapt to it and we must maximize the benefit that will come from these changes.
The role of Government is to help Canadians meet this need for change. It must support manpower and retraining programs in a major way. It must assist and encourage companies to change, through incentives for research and product development. And it must maintain a safety net to catch and assist those individuals who are having trouble adjusting. Put in its simplest terms, Governments must help us all to prepare for the future, not relive the past. This will require a major change in attitude by Governments and by individual Canadians.
I think many Canadians have made the adjustment. 1 think they have accepted the need for that change, but I do not believe that Governments have moved nearly as fast as they should have done. This surely is an area in which Government must lead, not be drawn in to the future, kicking and screaming, after valuable time has been lost.
My final priority is very much consistent with my Conservative philosophy. We must move into this new world by placing primary reliance on the initiative and determination of the individual. I am convinced that the combined will, intelligence and energy of many individuals, acting in their own selfinterest in building for their own future, is much more powerful and knowledgeable than a small coterie of politicians and bureaucrats making centralized decisions here in Ottawa.
For the very same reason, I have more confidence and faith in an economy built on a thriving, vigorous and self-reliant small business sector than one which is dominated by a concentration of Government-owned and large privately-owned companies. Our future must surely rely on this type of society and economy. It is the surest guarantee of those economic freedoms which are so fundamental to our way of life in Canada.
We are now entering a period in which there will be great pressures on individual Canadians, as well as on our economy and institutions. We must demonstrate great courage and determination as a nation and as individuals. We must tell Governments that they must not cave in and bail out the past. As individuals we must strive harder to get by on our own and to reawaken that spirit of enterprise that brought this country to its feet in its earlier days but which has slipped somewhat in recent years.
Now, those are the five objectives I have set out, and I want to move quickly into some of the specifics that I believe we can be looking at in addressing the specific problems of today.
Let me analyse the current problem in its simplest terms. We are in a vicious circle where we have a lack of business confidence because consumers are not buying and where we lack consumer confidence because they fear for their jobs. But because they fear for their jobs and they are not buying, business confidence falls because businesses are not selling things. We have to break out of that circle and we must, somewhere along the line, break the circle to improve the confidence of one of these elements. That is the biggest challenge of governments; how to stabilize that unemployment figure. I believe the way to do it is through new investment. This is not going to come from existing companies, because most existing companies have gone through a very wrenching experience in recent years in which they have tried to scale back to build a more productive enterprise. They will not be going out to hire people very quickly. We have to look to new business investment, small business start-ups and foreign investment. The small business organization recently submitted a report to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) which deals with a number of these areas. I urge the Minister to consider these carefully when preparing his budget.
I also urge the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to look very carefully at the role of foreign investment in this country. In Question Period today he referred to the job-creation aspect of new investment coming in. I agree. For the last three years we have been pleading with them to take that into account. Also, let us not forget the fact that foreign investment brings new technology and a more efficient type of operation in some instances.
Let me make one final plea. Government Ministers and others talk about the need for a higher deficit to stimulate the economy. I draw their attention to the fact that in the past, month mainly because of the spectre of high deficits in the United States and high deficits in Canada, proportionately double what they will be in the United States, we have seen a levelling off in recent days, an increase in long-term interest rates. Higher deficits will snuff out economic recovery through higher interest rates. I hope that is the message the Minister of Finance is receiving from people in the community as he goes about conducting his pre-budget meetings.
In conclusion, I do not want to enter into a debate today on comprehensive policy. I tried to outline a broad thematic

January 21, 1983
framework of five key objectives which I think are critically important to us to achieve the national consensus we all are talking about today. I have alluded to some alternatives that should be considered at the time of the next budget. I believe that these are the key to economic recovery and the rebuilding of confidence in our country so we can have a strong and selfreliant future. That is the way we have to develop our country in the eighties.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) a question. It relates to his comments with respect to the effect that increased deficits would have on long-term interest rates. All of us concede there would be a crowding out and that might be part of it. I draw that to his attention in light of what was said by the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who, in response to a question, indicated that he would be in favour of higher deficits at this time in order to help get our economy going and create meaningful jobs for those who are unemployed. Is the Hon. Member against higher deficits or is he in favour of higher deficits?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's question illustrates the real problem of understanding we have in this country of what is meant by higher deficits and what is meant by Government stimulus. It can come in many different ways. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard the Hon. Member for Rosedale say that the direction we in this Party would be following would be increased incentives for training, investment and investment in new technology.
The direction which this Government has followed, and has followed to an increasing degree in the past three years, is to do this through a grant where big money is paid out to selected elements of the economy, selected companies, rather than through a tax incentive where all companies can take advantage of it if they are going to participate directly in some sort of investment which will create economic activity immediately.
The difference is that we believe the incentive approach would have a much more immediate economic impact. Another aspect of it is that it is an investment in the future through training, product development and increased research activity. We believe the result will have considerably less impact on the deficit than the high profile megaproject infrastructure spending that the Minister of Finance is talking about. We believe our approach will have less impact on the deficit than those things which the Minister of Finance has been talking about.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the answer to the question is yes, the Conservative Party is not against higher deficits as they relate to the attempts by the Government to deal with job-training programs.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we think that the impact on the deficit in a very short period of time will be that the deficit will drop because there will be investment in new jobs, in new plants and equipment which will create new jobs, and take people off unemployment insurance and welfare. 1 again
Supply
underline that it is an investment to create new technology and training programs to help individual Canadians face the future in a more productive way. The results will be a lower deficit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair was prepared to recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Perhaps there has been a change.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker,
I would have welcomed this debate infinitely more if the wording of the motion had been changed to reflect what I believe is an absolute necessity in this country, the necessity that we all get together as rational human beings without this unnecessary confrontation, and try to find among ourselves ways and means to end the unemployment situation which is reaching absolutely endemic proportions in all OECD countries. Instead, we are treated to such wording as blaming the Government for so-called "callous disregard and tragic neglect of the dire economic and social plight of over two million Canadians who are unemployed". That is palpably untrue and grossly unfair.
I will zero in on one sector only during my remarks, that is the unemployed youth, and quote some interesting statistics. The Minister already quoted a whole litany of programs put in place by this Government to help the unemployed.
As regards youth unemployment, Employment and Immigration Canada is spending about $2.5 million per day on youth aged 15 to 24 years through 20 different programs and services which provide either employment or employment development. Can that be called callous disregard? Obviously not.
Since the fall, special measures have been put in place for youth, specialized youth units in every Province of Canada, new youth out-reach projects and $10 million Canada community development projects.
I may stop at this point to remark on something which was said a little while ago by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon). He mentioned in particular the community development project as it is short-term and therefore, he implied, totally unworthy. Let me give one example of the kind of results that can be achieved through the various training programs put in place by this Government. I shall refer to one particular project that was funded by the community development program which happened to be in my riding.
The cost of the program over one year was exactly $100,000. We managed to get it repeated because of the success of the results. In one year and a half, that is since the inception of that project, the homes of 87 senior citizens and low-income people were renovated at a cost to the low-income owners of the materials only. A further 27 projects are already under way, and of prime importance to the young people of Canada, in that project alone, 21 young people have received training for which they have all now passed their apprenticeship aptitude tests. Two of those young people have themselves opened their own businesses and are in turn employing other

January 21, 1983
Supply
youngsters. This is the kind of thing which can be done with good thinking and co-operation of all members of a community. This project itself has been so successful, it is interesting to note, that the model is now being accepted by no less an institute than the Kennedy Memorial Foundation of Boston, which only last week sent people up to Toronto to study the model. I would heartily recommend it to any Member of Parliament who is more interested in providing innovative programs in his or her particular constituency than in just griping about unemployment in the House of Commons.
We spoke about the need, Mr. Speaker, for total co-operation, and in that respect I hope the media were very factual in quoting recently a statement from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I have not got the clipping in front of me, but he said that if we are really concerned about unemployment we would sit around and discuss it rationally and constructively among ourselves, not just point fingers. We could put our heads together, put our good will all together, to stop this canker in our society. I fervently wish that more people would adopt the same attitude. I do congratulate the Hon. Member. Instead, what we have is emotion, such as has been handed to us today.
May I make another comment on the wording of this motion? I think it is indicative also of a certain degree of, shall we say, ambivalence which exists in the Tory caucus. Not one word of mention is given to job creation. We talk about encouraging job-creating investment, but we do not talk about job creation. 1 am led to wonder, does that mean that every Member of the Tory caucus would have the Government stop immediately all job-creation programs? If that is so, let them say it. If they are not against job-creation programs, will they at least tell us which ones work? Will they give credit where the credit is due and therefore return some kind of confidence to the people of Canada, who otherwise, listening to these debates, would think, my goodness, their tax money is just being thrown away? That is not true. I have already pointed out one particular program only in my riding, which has incidentally been repeated in other parts of Toronto. I have offered it also as a model to any Hon. Member of this House who wishes to repeat it in his or her own riding. Results can be achieved if we work together. Instead, we are told that the Government is to blame. The Minister, in his speech this afternoon, besides mentioning a long litany of programs which have already been put in place to curb unemployment, also mentioned a long litany of countries which, unfortunately, are also suffering the scourges of high unemployment. Interestingly enough, not one Hon. Member from the other side has dared to blame those other Governments for their high unemployment. Do the Tories blame the Thatcher Government for the enormous unemployment which exists in Britain at this moment? Of course not. Do they blame the Reagan administration for the high degree of unemployment in the United States? Of course not.
Now that I have mentioned the United States I will say that it was just last night, I believe, through radio and television, that we heard reports of the scandalous incidents which are
now occurring in the United States. It has been documented there. I mention that because, God knows, perhaps they even exist in Canada. People do not even have a roof over their heads any more in the United States. Last night a man was found frozen to death in a telephone booth in a city in the United States. Is that the country we want to emulate? God forbid. Yet is Reagan blamed for these kinds of situations? Of course he is not, nor should he be, if we are going to be fair. But in Canada, if it rains, it is supposed the Government must have ordered a rotten forecast.
We have to build confidence in the country, in the consumers and in business, and I believe we have to start by building a little confidence in ourselves, first as individual Canadians. More important, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), mentioned the need to co-operate even in this House of Commons, to put aside at least some of the partisan barbs and sit down and, as my hon. friend the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap said, put our heads together and come up with some kind of remedy for the frightful situation we are in with the unemployed. Instead, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we spend our time sniping and criticizing each other, and really not getting on with the job at all. It is no wonder that the people of Canada are losing faith in this institution.
There is also another sector at which we must look very carefully. Are the media really doing a good job all the time in reporting the facts? Do they not also think that it is good, it is "with it" to be negative all the time? Whatever the Government may suggest has to be automatically wrong, because it was the Government who suggested it. Let me read from The Edmonton Journal, the edition, I believe, of January 18, 1983. The article is entitled, "The Marching Jobless". It mentions a suggestion made that to put young people in the Armed Forces would be in effect to ask them to mark time in the Armed Forces. In other words, keep them out of sight and out of mind. It then says that if the suggestions were adopted, it would undermine the already shaky morale of Canada's forces.
I would tend to agree with that article, Mr. Speaker, if it were factual. I do not know what proposal they were discussing. It was certainly not the proposal which grew from this Liberal caucus in order to help unemployed youths in Canada join the Armed Forces, because at no time was the suggestion made that the criteria made for selection of those young people into the Armed Forces would be with any other Department except the Department of National Defence. We did not tell them what kind of people they should employ. We started by saying, all right, we have found probably 33,000 who are already eligible to go into the regular forces, who want to go into the regular forces. Let us start with that. Get those kids already eligible, if they want to join, and let us give the money to DND to do so. Instead, this has been distorted.
Of course, they might be speaking of another proposal, but certainly not one that came from this side of the House. Certainly, our proposal, which hopefully would employ as many as 50,000 young people over two years, would not be a
January 21, 1983

waste, either from the training point of view or the point of view of their earning money and helping the community at large, with the procurement program and the spin-off effects in the local community, because we are talking not only of presently existing bases; we are talking of probably 177 locations throughout Canada. Just think of that. Would that be a waste of money? But, unfortunately, when we come down to the cost factor, we have been told it would be an expensive program. And yes, in comparison with other programs, it would be expensive, until you think of the effect of getting immediately back into the Treasury the statutory contributions and other effects. However, if the Government were to accept not only this proposal but others-this flows from the question which the Parliamentary Secretary put to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson)-I wonder if the Tory Party, for one, would accept the idea of an increased deficit. Certainly from the answers and ambivalence we perceive in the Tory caucus, I am not sure.
We have been told in the past that deficits are the curse of present day society, depending on which economist you are following. 1 think what would spook me is not so much a higher deficit, but the continuing long unemployment of the people of Canada. In yesterday's Toronto Star we were told that industry, not the socialist Party or even some left-wing members of the Liberal Party, urges "billions for jobs". Even industry itself is no longer spooked by the thought of an increased deficit. 1 am not necessarily advocating a huge deficit; 1 would like it to be manageable. But if at the expense of increasing the deficit we can give hope to the unemployed people of Canada, certainly I am not going to object to that. However, 1 wonder what the Tory critics will say to that, people like the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) or the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), the Member who has just spoken, or the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I wonder if they could withstand the shock of yet another increased deficit. We will never know.
We have heard Members of the Official Opposition talk about Government intervention. They think it is a dreadful thing. We have been told on several occasions, that businessmen think that Government intervention is a dreadful thing. Then how come it was the businessmen themselves who asked the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) to go to the Pacific Rim countries? That is what I do not understand. Do they want Government intervention or not? if they do, how much do they want? How much intervention do they want in the job creation field? Will they accept a higher deficit? If so, by how much?
So far I have spoken of the Tory Party, but even the Leader of the NDP-again if media reports are correct-even he got squeamish at one stage about an increased deficit. So what is Government to do? Are we to be scared that if we do increase the deficit, the Tories will have a collective heart attack, or that the NDP will start having qualms? We do not know, but these are the kinds of questions that have to be asked.
Supply
The Tories talk about investment to create jobs, Mr. Speaker. Of course we on this side of the House would dearly wish to create a better climate for investment which would create jobs. But let us ask ourselves, is there enough money in Canada at the moment-even if it were all invested-to create all the jobs we need? 1 am not sure that the answer to that could possibly be yes. In fact, I am pretty sure it would have to be no, there is not enough money. So where do we get the investment money from? From overseas. Even today, in the midst of the unemployment crisis in Canada, in the midst of the sorrow which each and every one of us as Members of Parliament witness every week in our constituencies, with unemployed constituents, even with all that, there was a question today in the House from a Member of the NDP asking if the Government was going soft on FIRA. Here again we have to ask ourselves another question. On the one hand, we want investment in Canada to create jobs in Canada. On the other hand, we want an institution which is so tight that it frightens the daylights out of potential investors in this country. We cannot have it both ways. Perhaps that should be the sum total of this debate, Mr. Speaker. Because we cannot have it both ways, we have to get together in the spirit of co-operation, starting in this House, and talk about the realities of the situation, what can be done, and stop all this petty, petty bickering.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, first 1 should like to make a few comments on this idea of consensus and co-operation. The last speaker referred to this and said we should stop arguing amongst ourselves, that we should all cooperate. Everyone has spoken in favour of consensus, but what each individual means when he uses those words is that everyone should come around to his particular way of thinking, then we can solve all the problems. Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 really do not think that can happen. 1 do not know that it should happen. I think there always has to be room for dissent. The majority view, by and large, should prevail, but there should be room for dissent. The consensus by way of majority view will come about after the time of our next election. I have every expectation that there will be returned to this House a large majority Conservative Government after the next election. But there will still be room for dissent. There will be a handful of Liberal and NDP Members returned, of that I have no doubt. There might even be a dozen of them. 1 would not necessarily expect a high degree of co-operation from them. They will then be the voice of dissent and they will have every right to be heard. That is how majority consensus should operate.
I see by the consensus of Members here today that my time has been reduced from some 20 minutes to ten minutes. Therefore, what I will do is to give you a preview of a great speech I had intended to give, and probably will give at some future date. It had not been my intention to get into a great partisan debate, although the motion is phrased in a very condemnatory manner. I do not think it is necessary for me to condemn the Government; it has done that itself by its own actions and inaction. What I wanted to do was to look into the

January 21, 1983
Supply
principle, the cause and effect-I think that term was used by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans)-of the position we are in today and how we can remove those causes. The business cycle has been with us since the industrial revolution, and even before that when the world economy and the economy of nations was agriculturally based. 1 do not think we are going to get over the business cycle, not in the foreseeable future. What has happened is that governments, with all good intentions, have got into the act, but they have not solved the problem of the business cycle. They have changed its shape. Whereas in previous times the business cycle meant a great dip in economic activity, which would then spring back, we now have a prolonged period of recession. Whereas at one time the problem was acute, it has now become chronic.
Some of the good things that Government has done have helped to prolong the agony; the various income maintenance schemes, for example. That is one other reason why the free market in labour no longer exists. It might be very good if you are unemployed to be assured of that unemployment insurance, but what it means in the long run is that it takes a lot longer for the business cycle to recover. Other reasons that should be cited are the very nature of industry today, and the very large organizations and large unions that mean inflexibility is built into the system.
The degree to which Government is present in the marketplace is also being constrained. That does not allow the economy to rebound in the way it should. I could give as an example the Pine Point Mine in my constituency which is dependent on Government for transportation, through CN, and is dependent on Government for its electricity supply through the Northern Canada Power Corporation, which is a Crown corporation. These corporations are headed by reasonable people but they are so bureaucratic that they have to go all the way to Cabinet for decisions. The system is just not able to adapt. In Pine Point, the Northern Canada Power Commission charges 120 per cent of the cost of the power it supplies. When the mining company goes to the power company to ask for a reduction in the rate, it is told that the decision is up to Cabinet. If a private company were involved, rather than be put in the position of not selling any power, it would reduce the price. Certainly it would make a lesser profit but, all around, it would be good for the company, good for the mine and good for the employees involved.
There is a similar situation with the Dome mine in Yukon. It is so involved in discussing the bail-out it needs because it got involved with carrying out Government policy and is so dependent on top level decisions to be made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), that the normal flexibility in arrangements between members of the marketplace, just cannot take place. The Government of Canada owns the minerals in the Yukon. It is concerned with all the other great issues of the day, and what happens in the Yukon appears as the last item on the agenda for Cabinet meetings, I am sure. Cabinet probably never reaches it.
If the minerals were privately owned, things would be different. The owner would meet with the lessee, would meet
with the representatives of the employers and with the customers to try to work things out so that he could continue to receive royalties. That is not the case when the Government is involved in so much of the action.
I wanted to say something about protectionism and how it can be avoided, Mr. Speaker. When there is a contraction in trade, everyone loses. Practically every country in the world is guilty of some form of protectionism. Japan has put restrictions on the importation of manufactured goods. The United States is trying to restrict the importation of competitively produced Canadian lumber. In Canada we protect industries such as the garment industry which is largely headquartered in Montreal. Then there was the fiasco on the West Coast concerning the importation of Japanese cars. We all share the guilt, Mr. Speaker.
The long-range solution to economic problems is the removal of constraints and international trade that is as free as is possible. When I get around to giving this great speech, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the things that we might do in the short term to alleviate unemployment. My main contention will be that we should concentrate on public works, on things of an investment nature, rather than short-term, make work, current account-type schemes that will have no long-term effects.
If we have to borrow money in the marketplace, if we have to resort to a certain amount of inflation and deficit financing, then we should put things in place that will pay dividends in the future. I think of roads, harbours, air strips. I could cite examples from the last Depression, such as the Grand Coulee Dam in the United States. Such things would pay dividends in the long run and are the type of thing we should be doing.
I am sorry I was not able to go into these matters in detail but I shall give the House the benefit of my advice for the long run at another time. In deference to my colleagues who wish to speak this afternoon, I shall now take my seat.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much 1 appreciate the element of co-operation the House has shown this afternoon in allowing the maximum number of Members to participate in the debate. I think this is a very positive gesture and augurs well for the future.
1 have two brief comments to make, one of which is perhaps of a slightly negative nature. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) brought this motion to the House today. I respect his views and I know his intentions are positive and honourable. I cannot say that about all his colleagues, however.
As I listened to the speeches today I recalled one of my grandfathers who lived into his nineties. As he approached the end of his life his mind began to slip and the only things he could recall happened in his youth. For hours on end he would tell stories about what it was like to be a young man in Norway. Today, when I was listening to the Progressive Conservative speakers, I was reminded of my grandfather. They keep
January 21, 1983

thinking of the old ways and what happened in the nineteenth century.
Some of the policies they articulated might have been fine for Canada in the late 1800s or early 1900s but they do not apply to the complex world we live in today. Listening to some of the ideas put forward by the Progressive Conservatives, one has a sense of history. That is not a blanket condemnation of them all as one hears many progressive ideas in a debate such as the one we are involved in today.
I want to refer to some of the positive ideas offered by members of the New Democratic Party, some backbench Liberals, and even the odd Tory. There is an element of frustration in the land today, Mr. Speaker. By and large, people have lost faith in the political leadership of the country at the national, provincial and even the local levels. I wonder if it is not time for the Government to set aside a number of days when members of the New Democratic Party could lay out, in a creative, innovative and positive style, what they feel we ought to be doing for both the short term and the long term. We could forget about the way the Government and some Tory Provincial governments have erred and set out what we feel should be done in the short term and in the long term. We could even ask the Liberals to lay out what they think the long and short-term solutions to our problems are. Then, almost by definition, we would expect the Progressive Conservatives to tell the country precisely what they feel should be done in the long term and in the short term.
I have a difficult time trying to understand what the Progressive Conservatives think should be done. One Member says that we need to stimulate the economy, while the blue chip advisory committee of the Government says that it is time to abandon the six and five program and to stimulate the economy-not to the extent of hundreds of millions but, in the words of lan Sinclair, to the extent of billions and billions of dollars.
The finance critic for the Progressive Conservatives says that they do not believe in deficit expansion. But, in response to a question, he said that they want to use the tax system to give tax advantages to corporations and to medium and small businesses in order to stimulate the economy. Anyone knows that when tax loopholes are provided for the private sector in order to stimulate the economy, it means less revenue will accrue to the Government coffers. It does not take much imagination to figure that out. When less corporate tax and less personal income tax is collected, it means that it is likely the deficit will increase. Do the Conservatives believe in an expanded deficit or do they not? One gets a different impression according to which Member one listens to.
In the last few moments available to me, Mr. Speaker, let me say something about foreign investment. We have heard a great deal about the need to stimulate investment, to encourage investment, both at home and from abroad. One of the problems when we talk about investment, particularly foreign investment, is that we do not differentiate between investment that comes in from loans and simply loans to Canadian corporations from the outside to encourage them to expand
Supply
and investment from equity loans when foreign investors from Germany, Japan or the United States come here and buy equity in Canada, in other words, foreign control of Canada. I think it is time, if we are going to say that we agree or disagree with foreign involvement or "foreign investment", that we distinguish between equity involvement and simply loans.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Northwest Territories and my friend from British Columbia in the New Democratic Party for allowing me to participate for a few moments in the debate this afternoon. I have sat in the House all day and listened to this debate. In some respects it has been an interesting one, interesting because we have begun for the first time a question and answer period. I hope for people who are watching the debate that it has been more stimulating than the usual debate when people read from texts, which may be necessary from time to time and when people make long speeches, such as those made by Ministers of Finance on budget nights, but which are not so necessary on other occasions.
I am impressed with the questions and answers from both sides of the House. I am equally impressed with the way in which the Chair has, in this first time that we have gone into the experimental period, handled itself in terms of fairness to everyone. 1 hope that we are seeing a new structure and some new form in debate which might be followed by some new substance.
There is one concern 1 have about Parliament. 1 am not alone. The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) feels strongly about this place, and I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell), who is here, feels very strongly about this place, and the Hon. Member who has just spoken also feels strongly about Parliament. I am speaking about the issue of partisanship. I do not say this from the point of view of anyone who has never taken part in the barbs of which people speak. I have done that. We have all done that at one time or another. But what 1 call crass partisanship does not do this institution any good at all. Every time we call one another names, as we do from time to time, it does detract from the debate, which all of us are interested in promoting as a worthwhile Canadian exercise.
That is one of the purposes of the reforms. When I use the word partisanship, 1 think it is very important to understand what it means. If partisanship is to be meanness, crassness, calling one another sleazy or shouting across the floor of the House of Commons with a lack of civility, it is not the kind of thing which uplifts this institution. But if it is the clash of ideas, ideas that may be forcefully put, then I believe that kind of partisanship is a good thing and is the purpose of this institution.
Today we have had a clash of ideas. We have had a clash in the Question Period and a clash in the speeches that have been made by Hon. Members. 1 think this is one of the best debates we have had the opportunity to have.

January 21, 1983
Supply
The problem with this House is that there are some great issues which have to be discussed concerning Canada. How do we relate to the United States and the rest of the world? How do we relate to the Soviet Union? What is our attitude toward trading and the matter of disarmament? How should we look after our veterans? All of these things we address in terms of legislation. All of these things we address in the Question Period. Some of them we address when we take legislation to committees. But there is very little opportunity for the give and take of debate on the floor of this House of Commons which Members have managed to do in the Parliament of Great Britain. These allotted days for the Opposition, when the Opposition has the right to choose a topic, are one of those opportunities. If there is a clash of opinion or a clash of ideas, differences of points of view expressed forcefully but with civility, then I think that is a healthy turn of events. Today has been that kind of a day. When there are pleas for lack of partisanship, let us make sure that if we plead for lack of a certain kind of partisanship, a lack of meaningless partisanship, and can have instead the opportunity to engage in a clash of ideas, that we do so.
Someone said, 1 think it was the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) whose speech 1 enjoyed and I compliment him on it, that we have to come to consensus. If we can, we must come to consensus on objectives. We may not always agree. Some Parties in this House have a responsibility to lead. And we, as well as opposing from time to time, have a responsibility to suggest. But 1 think it was the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre who said that we should come together. 1 accept that we should come together to discuss things far beyond just a debate like today. I think it would be important in this House if someone had thought that there might be ability, buttressed by appropriate staff in this Chamber, alone or in concert with the other place, to have done a great deal of the work that has been given to the Macdonald Royal Commission.
I mean no disrespect to a former Member of this House, but it seems to me that ultimately Hon. Members of this House,
by their votes, the Government by the policy it presents, and the positions taken by others, are going to be judged. If it is the Government which decides that there should be a special committee on the economic opportunities in the short, medium or long-term for Canada, and what can be done about that, then that is a matter in which we should be able to participate. On that committee there would be that kind of clash of opinion. If we could come to grips with deciding for the country what is a true relationship between government and the private sector, government and business; what is the place of government in Canada, whether it is appropriate that we adopt from other jurisdictions certain things which may be fine for them but many not apply here, those too are matters that we should be prepared to discuss.
I think the structures are here. The people are here. I agree with the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre that we are not tapping the potential of this House of Commons at all. Perhaps that is why there is such frustration among Members which finds itself displayed in other ways.
I have had only a short time, but I answer the challenge of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre in this way. Allow us to participate. My Party has advanced ideas over the years which may not all be agreeable, but we have found that Governments do not listen. We do not advance ideas for self-aggrandizement; we advance them because we are as interested in the progress of this country as anyone else.
Give us all a chance to participate, and perhaps all Hon. Members would be surprised at the consensus we could find.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being 5 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 62, the proceedings on the motion have expired. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, January 24, 1983