1983-04-15

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in May of 1982 the Department of Transport levied a 350 per cent increase on parking fees for private aircraft at DOT airports. Only six weeks later the six and five formula was introduced by the Government as a check on inflation. The imposition of a further 6 per cent as of May this year in these fees means in reality that a tax of an extra 21 per cent has been levied on the rate in existence just a year ago. This is not the true six and five approach, nor does it take into account the additional 6 per cent to be imposed on landing fees for private aircraft, fuel concession fees, and on international route fees.
Furthermore, the Department has yet to allow those paying an annual parking fee at one airport to park, without paying an extra fee, at a nearby airport when weather or other landing conditions prevent a pilot from reaching his home base.
Most private operators are businessmen selling Canadian products continent-wide and keeping Canadians at work. Why are they being asked to carry this additional heavy burden, along with a radio operator's fee that costs twice as much as a radio licence for sports boats and, indeed, for cargo carriers on the Great Lakes?


INCOME TAX
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, there are approximately 250,000 part-time university students in Canada, many of whom attend McMaster University and Mohawk College in Hamilton. These part-time students form a rapidly growing sector of the post-secondary educational community. As such, they are concerned with amending the Income Tax Act in order to assist this movement to part-time studies in a more
equitable way, and to permit part-time students to qualify in principle and on a pro-rata basis for some of the tax exemptions now available only to full-time students.
The amendments which the Canadian Organization of Parttime University Students is proposing to the Income Tax Act include pro-rating the $50 a month educational deduction; transferring the tuition deduction from a non-working spouse to a working spouse; and allowing part-time students to deduct incidental fees.
Since we live in an age of constant and rapid change, people must continually upgrade their education and most can do this only on a part-time basis. That being the case, I suggest that we at the federal level should do all we can to encourage Canadians to upgrade their educational level through parttime study in order that they may acquire the skills they will need for the jobs of the future.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, farm bankruptcy statistics were issued this week for the first quarter of 1983, and comparisons were made with the first quarter of 1982. On a national basis there was no great change. Bankruptcies in 1983 amounted to 115 compared to 113, but we see a great difference or shift, if you will, in the bankruptcies on a regional basis. We note that in western Canada bankruptcies increased from 17 a year ago to 39 this year, a dramatic increase of 130 per cent.
While in some regions of the country the bankruptcy rate has remained about the same, the Government has not paid any attention to the increase in bankruptcies in the areas hardest hit. Indeed, the response has been to ignore them. The initial prices for wheat have dropped in the area where bankruptcies are now the highest, and the Government is intending to increase freight rates in that area as well. Again, the result will be to reduce net incomes and further increase and aggravate the probability of bankruptcy in that region. We think the Government should be taking more positive action and attacking the problem by bringing in a-


Madam Speaker:: Order.

April 15, 1983
S.O.	21 INDUSTRY


ANNOUNCED CLOSURE OF REFINERY AT HOLYROOD, NFLD.
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, on March 30, 1983, Ultramar Canada announced it was closing its refinery at Holyrood, Newfoundland, as of June 30. This will mean the loss of 105 man years of employment and an approximate loss of $91 million to the Newfoundland gross provincial product.
When this refinery was opened in 1960 it provided Ultramar with access to and a toe hold in the North American market. While this was only a small refinery with a 15,000 barrel a day capacity, production has been reduced to less than 50 per cent because of a falloff in the demand for heavy crude as a result of the change in the energy pattern with respect to home heating fuel consumption and so on.
My point is that the closing of the Holyrood refinery, Madam Speaker, is a direct result of the expansion of Ultra-mar's refinery in Quebec. I do not quarrel with that, but that expansion has been at the expense of Newfoundland's refinery, and I believe Ultramar has a responsibility to Newfoundland because it was through the people and Government of that Province that its owners got their introduction to the North American market in the first instance. However, they indicate their decision is final and irrevocable, so I want to suggest, through this procedure, that the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), and the Minister of DREE, should get in touch with the Government of Newfoundland with a view to taking whatever steps are necessary to keep the Holyrood refinery open.


PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY-STIPULATIONS GOVERNING BUDGET COVERAGE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, George Orwell's Big Brother 1984 has obviously arrived eight months early. I refer to the Minister of Finance's new rules governing the nation's news media on budget night next Tuesday. Madam Speaker, I spent some 20 years in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, one of them as that Association's President under the current Liberal Prime Minister. I can tell him and this House that I have never experienced such blatant news management by any Canadian Government.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and his Liberal advisers are telling the Parliamentary Press Gallery who can report the budget, when they can report the budget, and how they can report the budget. That constitutes "news management at best, censorship at worst", to quote commentator Bruce Phillips.
The Liberal Government is now decreeing who will be considered journalists, and who will be accredited as economic experts and analysts to be allowed into the traditional budget
lock-up. In addition, the Liberal Government is now insisting that the media, under signed undertaking, will for the first time remain locked up in the Government Conference Centre for one full hour after the Minister begins his budget address at 8 p.m. EST. This will drastically affect national television and radio reporting and analysis of the budget.
Basically, this is being done to keep off the air those journalists and experts who might dare criticize the budget while the Minister intones his address.
I appeal to the Government of Canada to revert to the traditional practice of covering budgets, and to trust members of the media, along with Members of Parliament, to observe those traditional guidelines. Above all, I urge the Government to prevent this outrage to freedom of the press.


PROTEST AGAINST ARRANGEMENTS FOR MEDIA COVERAGE OF BUDGET
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, as Canadians await the 1983 budget, a budget coming at a time when the state of the Canadian economy is at its lowest ebb since the 1930s, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has been making a number of efforts in the last number of months to consult with various Canadians in various regions of Canada. However, already a dark pall is beginning to form over the budget process. We find that the Minister of Finance is now concerned about the critics who will be commenting on the budget, both in the media as well as in the Opposition Parties and, as a result, is taking steps to, in a sense, muzzle reaction on the eve of the budget.
Surely the budget itself should stand on its own merits. If the Government has confidence in the Minister of Finance and his budget, it ought to have no concern over Opposition Members or the media making positive criticisms of its budget statement. Therefore, I urge the Minister of Finance to reconsider the procedures on budget night in terms of keeping Opposition critics as well as media critics from responding as early as traditionally has been done on the night of a budget. I urge him to remember that this is the most important budget which the country will receive for the next number of years and it is imperative that fair and objective criticism be presented.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in the past 15 months some 32 full-time Canadian Pacific Railway clerical positions in the Customer Service Centre and the West Side wharf in Saint John, New Brunswick, have been lost. This has resulted in a general deterioration of rail service and now poses a threat to the welfare of the good citizens of Saint John.
April 15, 1983

Four of the workers who lost their jobs were inter-change clerks who would know the exact location of cars carrying dangerous goods passing through the city. With the elimination of the clerical jobs, the possibility of dangerous commodities travelling through the city unchecked, or their exact location unknown, greatly increases.
Additionally, there would be no personal contact between the fire officials and the railway regarding the passage of these goods and the event of disaster heightened by delayed response time.
As the Government appears to have some influence over the operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway by the fact it can bind CPR workers to the six and five wage program by law, I would urge the Government to discuss with CPR officials the possibility of rehiring the inter-change clerks to assure the exact locations of dangerous commodities are known and reported.
Rail operations in Saint John have been whittled down to mere bones resulting in extensive lay-offs in all areas of rail transportation, and poorer service. I would urge CPR to cease lay-offs that not only affect the quality of rail services in Saint John and New Brunswick but force workers into positions of unemployment, unknown futures, and despair.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it has been publically alleged that Canadair gave a private jet to the Argus Corporation, and the allegation has not yet been denied. It is also well known that the President of Argus is Conrad Black.
Furthermore, according to Peter Newman in his book "The Establishment Man", Conrad Black last year hired as his private consultant the former private secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), now on his second try as Liberal candidate for Spadina.
Considering the Prime Minister's often stated concern to discourage conflict of interest, it would be helpful if the Prime Minister would inquire, and make public, whether Jim Coutts helped to arrange the sweetheart deal between Canadair and Argus.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
Oral Questions
Would the Minister confirm whether it is the intention of the Government of Canada to insert a four-page supplement in Canada's daily newspapers next week to promote the Government's legislation to dismantle the Crow? If it is, could the Minister tell us why this is being done before the legislation has been introduced in the House of Commons, and under whose authority is the supplement being inserted? As well, can he give the House some indication of whether or not it will be included in all the dailies across Canada, and at what cost?
Are we also to assume that the Government is contemplating a corresponding television promotion as well, along the lines of the flying Canadian geese that we witnessed about a year ago, aptly substituted with a flock of crows departing from the Canadian agricultural scene?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is a long question. Yes indeed, we are contemplating that. I have a copy here which I could show the Hon. Member. It will appear this weekend.
The reason it appears before the Bill is something that I cannot control. There are deadlines over which I am not the master.
Its cost is approximately $350,000. It will appear in a number of papers, in English only, because we already have some in French. It will appear in a number of regions in Canada.


Mr. Nowlan:: The same message?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, the same message.
The Government is sponsoring it, but presumably I take some responsibility for what is in there. I feel this is quite defensible. If standards are important in these matters, which I think they are. I have a collection here of advertisements by different Governments in the West from the different Parties. One ad says, "Saskatchewan Challenges the Pepin Plan", which ad is paid for by the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture. Another states, "Saskatchewan Solution: Save the Crow", paid for by the NDP Government in Saskatchewan. An ad by the Conservative Government of Manitoba states, "Grain: The Network of Roads Designed, Built and Maintained by Your Manitoba Highway Department". One from a Conservative Government from the Department of Transport in Alberta states, "We have built and maintained a vast network of roads for you to carry your grain." So I am in very good company.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 15, 1983
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Unfortunately, the ad fails to recognize the impact that the Pepin proposals will have upon the producers of Canada in terms of grain production and the over-all economic hardships that it will impose upon the producers of Canada.


REQUEST THAT FARMERS BE PROVIDED WITH ADVERTISING FUNDS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, in the interest of fairness and maintaining a balance, would the Minister support the farmers of Canada in running a corresponding ad telling their side of the story and the disincentives that this will have on the producers and the economic impact it will have upon them? Will he support the farmers of western Canada by providing funds for a corresponding ad which would add some balance to the debate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will not have to support them because they already do it. For example, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has been running an ad throughout the country addressing itself to Members of Parliament from different areas, and pleading with them not to agree with the Bill when it is introduced.
At the end of the day, I think this is educational. The public is entitled to receive different points of view. In the final analysis it is the taxpayer, be he or she a member of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, a citizen of Saskatchewan or of the country as a whole, who pays for it. Presumably they do not mind being educated in this fashion.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, unfortunately it is very difficult for the pools, farm organizations and producer groups to compete with the treasury of the federal Government. I repeat that this is an advertising campaign being conducted for legislation that is yet to be introduced in the House of Commons.
Having looked at the ad, I note that the supplement emphasizes job creation, high technology, and economic stimulus, with very little mention of the impact on the producers of Canada. Are we to assume that this package represents the Government's new economic strategy? Is this the Government's megaproject for the 1980s? Can we expect the Minister of Finance, in the introduction of his budget, to emphasize correspondingly the dismantling of the Crow as the Government's megaproject for the 1980s?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is not a bad idea. It is indeed a megaproject, if ever there was one, at $16.5 billion over the next eight or nine years. That is not a bad contribution to the economy. It is certainly a very strong contribution, which the Minister of Finance has said a number of times, to the recovery that we are witnessing now. From that point of view, I thank the Hon.
Member for making a contribution to the publicity we are trying to give it. It is not a description of the Bill. But there is in each ad a short enumeration of what will be the main parts of the Bill. I shall say more on that as soon as I can.


FARMERS' PRODUCTION COSTS
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In the advertising on the Crow rate there seems to be, as the Hon. Member for Vegreville pointed out, a definite absence of the benefit to the farmers. The advertisement clearly indicates the benefits to the rail system. The Minister will know, by the multitude of letters that have crossed his desk, that there is absolutely no consensus for the type of advertising that is taking place.
Will the Minister consider exactly what is happening to the producer? Will he look at the cost to the producer at a time when world grain prices have dropped $1 a bushel? Will the Minister consider the increased costs of production? The farmers cannot accept the increased costs that are being advertised in the Pepin proposal at this time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, Hon. Members will have plenty of opportunity to debate each one of those points. The benefits that farmers will gain from this proposal are pretty easy to enumerate. For the first time farmers will have certainty about the transportation of grain. Farmers worry every year whether grain will get to the coast on time. Farmers will not have to worry any more because they will have the best freight transportation system in the world.
Farmers will be able to save on storage and demurrage. Farmers will be allowed to diversify their crops and will be allowed to process more than they are now. What farmers will pay in return, on the other side of the equation, will remain quite moderate, in my view.
What the Crow represents now is a cost of 2.5 per cent of the price of grain internationally. If this system that we will introduce goes through, in four or five years from now it will represent 5 per cent of the cost of grain internationally. At the end of the decade it will represent 8 per cent, 9 per cent or 10 per cent, depending upon a number of factors that I cannot predict entirely accurately. If that is so, 8 per cent to 10 per cent will be about the average of the last 30 years and this percentage will be substantially less than it has been at different times in the history of the country, because at different times the cost has represented 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the price of grain. I will have plenty of occasions on which to spoonfeed my friends on these facts of grain life, and I will be delighted to do so.


IMPACT OF PROPOSED CHANGES ON CENTRAL CANADA
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Transport. The Minister knows that in this proposal there is a 500 per cent increase in cost to farmers. He also knows that by 1992 the average
April 15, 1983

farmer will pay at least $8,000 more for freight transportation than he is paying now. Farmers are concerned about where they will raise the $8,000 at a time when the price of grain is failling. There seems to be a direct parallel to the national energy policy here with no consideration to the field, with no consideration to the producer, and with no consideration to production.
For the welfare of all of Canada, what is the Minister going to do if he has bankrupt farmers on his hands who will not be able to buy combines and tractors from central Canada, and who will not be able to buy rubber and steel from central Canada? Has the Minister considered the impact of such a loss to all Canada in the Pepin proposals?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is much to be said on this subject. The Hon. Member used the figure of 500 per cent. Five hundred per cent of what? A better way to say it is that, under the proposal we will introduce, the farmer will pay two times Crow in four years, which is a change from 13 cents per bushel to 26 cents per bushel. At the end of the decade he might pay, because there are so many factors, 75 cents per bushel.


Mr. Epp:: That is 500 per cent.


Mr. Nielsen:: Even by your math that is 500 per cent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is less than the cost of a stamp on an envelope that goes to Canada Post today.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is going up too.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is going up, but I predict that it will never go up further than the price of a stamp on an envelope.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: You will regret those words.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There must be a comparison there which should impress my hon. friend.
Anyway, by way of comparison, during the Saskatchewan election a certain Minister of Agriculture was telling the people, "Beware of the Pepin plan-13 times Crow". Well, it is two times Crow in four years' time and will be five times Crow at the end of the decade. I forgot to mention, of course, all kinds of possibilities. There is no doubt the farmer will be able to produce, not only with the assurance that his grain will be transported, but will be able to produce a lot more than he produces now.


TIMING OF ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport as well. What right does the Government have to run a four-page tabloid like this one, in at least ten Ontario papers tomorrow? The Crow legislation has not even been
Oral Questions
introduced into the House of Commons. We have not even had first reading of the Bill. There was no reference to it in the Throne Speech. There was no reference to it whatsoever in the Estimates. There was no promise made of it whatsoever in the 1980 Liberal election platform. What right does the Government have to spend this amount of public money, without the consent of Parliament, on what is clearly a partisan ad on behalf of the Liberal Party of something which has not even come before the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question in the first answer I gave. The rights are the same as the ones which the NDP Government of Saskatchewan was using some months ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is all in here. I think we have to admit that they are quite frank about it, "Paid by the Transportation Agency of the Government of Saskatchewan." It could not be any clearer. Not only is this proselytizing before the Bill was even announced, this is also indulging people in the wrong belief that it would be 13 times Crow. My hon. friend obviously has two standards-one for his Party and one for the rest of the world, or one for his Province and one for the rest of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As usual, the Minister of Transport is once again misleading the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The advertising in Saskatchewan was based upon legislative authority in that Province. It was approved by the Legislature of Saskatchewan, and that has not happened in this case.


REQUEST THAT ADVERTISEMENTS BE WITHDRAWN
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, Government Members have access to public funds which we in the Opposition do not have; we cannot spend money like that. I want to know whether or not the Minister of Transport will now withdraw these ads, or whether or not he will have the guts to have the Liberal Party of Canada reimburse the Government of Canada and the taxpayers of Canada for these partisan political ads.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was
within the authority of the NDP Government of Saskatchewan to send the bill to the Transportation Agency, a Crown corporation of the Government of Saskatchewan. No, Madam Speaker, I think Governments must tell the country what they intend to do. That is the normal process. As my hon. friend knows, we have had a few Members for a while in the West now, explaining the Bill. I do my very best and my colleagues do their very best to do that. But the use of newspapers is one

April 15, 1983
Oral Questions
of the normal, natural, sensible and moral ways of taking information to the public.


REQUEST THAT TRANSPORT RATES BE TIED TO GRAIN EXPORT PRICES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a couple of supplementary questions. He said that the cost of the movement of grain would not rise any more than the cost of a postage stamp. Is he also making other parallels that the kind of service will be analogous to that provided by the Post Office?
The minister makes reference to the increased cost projected to the year 2000 being somewhere in the eight per cent range of the export sale price for grain. Will the Minister undertake at least one measure which will give farm producers some security by tying transportation cost to a percentage of the export price for grain, rather than tying it to prices which reflect inflation as in the cost of transport, because farmers cannot cause or protect themselves from inflationary factors?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the service that the railways will give is the type that the Post Office would like to give, so both of them meet in their desire for excellence. On the subject, and it is a very popular one I may say, of tying the cost of transportation to the selling price of grain, this idea is growing in popularity in the West. I must say, and my Hon. friend knows because he is quite learned on this, that the subject was not brought forward with any degree of intensity in the Gilson exercise, and that it regrettable.


An Hon. Member:: Exercise?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry that I do not have the whole lexicon of my hon. friend at my command. The subject was not brought up at the Gilson group committee, or call it whatever you want. I was saying that it is an idea that has some importance. This Government, the Members of it and the Members of the Liberal Party are democratic. If there should be a great popular demand for it, if groups which have difficulty accepting this or that part of the program, come together in a very great movement of enthusiasm, I am quite sure the Government will not be indifferent to them.


PROTECTION FROM DEMURRAGE CHARGES
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, on that narrow section of the whole Crow debate, I say to the Minister that if he searches widely across the Prairies he will find increasing support for the view of tying the cost of the shipment of grain to the export value. It need not be to any one specific year. It could be to a range of years, knowing what happened with the fixed rate in the 1930s when the cost of shipment went to 35 per cent of the price of the grain.
In several responses, once today and previously in the press, the Minister has said that the new Crow rate will save the farmers from demurrage charges. Can he expand on how they can save on demurrage charges from an improved transport system?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, very simply by getting there on time. If you get to port in a lower number of days, obviously you are in a much better position to serve the ships waiting there. That is a normal consideration. On the previous subject, I know that my hon. friend is campaigning in favour of the Bill which we will introduce. I know he is favourable toward it. I would be grateful if, sometime in a week or so from now, he tells me that on the tying idea he has the wholehearted support of the whole of the Conservative Party and would gladly commit himself to approve the Bill if there was a possibility of including that part.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. He was here a minute ago. I believe he is behind the curtain.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member ask his question, and perhaps a Parliamentary Secretary can answer it?


Gordon Edward Taylor: The morale among the staff in many of our federal prisons is running very low. If nothing is done we could have a very serious situation on our hands. In the Drumheller penitentiary feelings have reached the explosive stage. One of the aggravations is the imposition by decree of a new duty roster. Why is the Government forcing a new duty roster on the prison staff when the present duty roster and squad system is working to the satisfaction of not only the prison staff but of the administration in the Drumheller Institution?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, there is a very easy answer to that question. I am doing it because the present duty roster system, in spite of what the Hon. Member says, does not serve the best interests of the prison. It produces a great deal of overtime costs. I hope that the Hon. Member, as a representative of the taxpayers, will be as concerned as I am about that. It also produces periods in which there are less than the proper number of people on regular duty in the institution.
The duty roster system which I have supported, and which is being put into effect this week in Drumheller, will be a much more efficient and effective one. I would urge the Hon. Member to support it. It has already been introduced in Quebec and Ontario. The institution in the Hon. Member's constituency
April 15, 1983

will benefit from having this improved system, and the taxpayers have a great deal to gain from it as well.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I suggest to the Minister that the new system will cost more and cause a great deal of disturbance among the staff. It will cost the taxpayer more money. This can be proved by past experience.


EFFECT ON STAFF AGREEMENT
Gordon Edward Taylor: Is the Minister aware that enacting this new roster unilaterally is contrary to the agreement the Government has with the staff? Is the Government going to continue to have these things done unilaterally by a few bureaucrats rather than negotiating with the prison staff? Will the Minister hold this up for two weeks so that the prison staff have some opportunity to negotiate? Apparently he is not prepared to do that. Why the rush to shove something down their throats, when the present system is working?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am not willing to give another two weeks before implementing this system because we have already given three months in which there has been a lot of consultation and discussion. The union said it could come up with an equally effective and efficient system, and then was unable to do so. The Member speculates that this will cost the Government more. I can assure him that it will cost the Government less.
Insofar as unrest is concerned, the Hon. Member can have a role to play in that. If he looks at the positive effect that this is having in other institutions where it has been introduced without difficulty, and looks at other penitentiary systems of the Provinces, some of which have been using this system for years, the system that we are now introducing, he will see that it is an advantageous system. The only down side of it, if I can put it that way to the Member, is that some employees who have been getting a lot of overtime will get somewhat less overtime.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. At the meeting of the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs yesterday, when asked if the Books of Remembrance would be altered, the Minister did not give a clear and precise answer. Will he now give a clear and unequivocal commitment to the people of Canada that there will be no desecration of the Books of Remembrance in the Peace Tower?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member alleges that I did not give a very clear answer to the Committee yesterday. I was asked by an Hon. Member whether or not the proposal to alter the
Oral Questions
Books of Remembrance, and the proposal to which the Legion objected very strenuously, would be proceeded with.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The first part of the question, I think, was a reference to something that happened in the committee, but then the question was on a specific matter to which the Hon. Minister might give an answer. I would like him not to refer specifically to or to repeat argument or debate that has taken place in committee.


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, the answer is simply that the proposal to alter the Books of Remembrance to which the Legion objected very vehemently will not be proceeded with.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the Challenger matter which, in the long run, might in many respects be just as important as his upcoming budget, considering we have Conservative leadership candidates talking about getting rid of Crown corporations and we have the CDIC coming up, which may be the beginning of Government economic planning in the country.
I would like to tell the Minister that the Government took over Canadair in 1975. I am informed that by 1981 its liabilities had gone up to between $900 million and $1 billion. The Government was appalled by this and set up a task force to regularize the letters of comfort which are Order in Council financing. Would the Minister of Finance confirm that that task force was set up then and that it reported to the Cabinet that the liabilities of Canadair in 1981 were $986 million, that the liabilities would go up to $1.2 billion, and that the task force recommended to the Government that it seek proper authority from Parliament for the $1.2 billion, which the Government never did?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the Hon. Member's question. He must be mindful of the fact that reports that are made to Cabinet, of course, are subject to the confidentiality under which the Cabinet system operates.


CHALLENGER AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION COSTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that, under the Freedom of Information Act, reports to even the Cabinet can be made public provided they do not give the recommendations. In

April 15, 1983
Oral Questions
countries like Sweden, they open the whole thing up. I do not know why this Government does not open it up.
Considering these facts, would the Minister confirm that there was a later addendum to the task force which indicated that the liability was higher than $1.2 billion because the Canadair management was not frank with the Government or with the task force? In fact, on November 13, 1981, Canadair management did not inform a committee of the House that the costs had gone up, and on November 20, 1981, they had in fact misinformed the Government task force that the Canadair management had reopened the General Electric contract which would cost an additional $100 million for engines and so on.
Would the Minister confirm then that the Government, by the addendum to its own task force, was being misled by the management of Canadair?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by an addendum to a task force. However, the same reply goes in terms of the question that he has asked. His allegations refer to matters that are internal to Cabinet discussions and therefore are subject to confidentiality.


MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I do not know how the Minister believes that Government and Crown corporations should work together, but we on this side of the House believe that Crown corporations should be open, they should have workers on the board, there should be public hearings, there should be regular reports to Parliament. In short, we believe we should have economic democracy in this country, unlike the way the Government is running things.
Considering the fact that the other day the Prime Minister admitted, and a new mini task force told the Government that the liabilities of Canadair would go presently from $1.8 billion to $2.3 billion, and considering the fact that the management of the company is still there-there are 100 people who are making over $95,000 a year, and there are 20 people who are making over $ 100,000 a year-why has no one been fired from that company? Why has no management been fired when it is quite clear, on the record, and admitted by the Prime Minister, that the Government and the people of Canada have been misled by the management of Canadair?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, from the replies that have been made in this House relating to Canadair in the past two or three days, there has been an indication that the CDIC was formed specifically in order to provide an overview in terms of the operations not only of Canadair but also of de Havilland, another corporation that has the Government as its sole shareholder.
In terms of economic democracy, the representations the Hon. Member has made relating to Crown corporations reporting to the Government and there being an availability
for Members of Parliament to question the Crown corporation-all that is in place. Parliament was advised yesterday that there will be supplementary estimates coming before it relating to Canadair. There will be full opportunity for all Members on both sides of the House to question Canadair and its officials, and to question CDIC officials, relating to the whole of the allegations surrounding the Canadair issue. I am sure that full information will be forthcoming.
I would be one of the first to agree that that process is a necessary one because, as the Prime Minister has indicated in the past, we in Canada have benefited from a mixed economy whereby in the value-added sector there has been a large number of Crown corporations that have permitted us to participate in activities that the private sector did not want to undertake.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, how can the Minister say that the House of Commons will have full information when he has just denied a request by the Member who has last spoken for the results of the task force report? How can the Minister say that the Government has not changed its tune from yesterday to today, when yesterday the Prime Minister said we would have the information to make the evaluation of the business judgments of Canadair, and now my friend stands in the House and denies us a very important part of that evidence?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, there has been no change in the Government's policy. We are operating according to procedures generally recognized within a Parliamentary democracy and the traditional Cabinet system. As soon as the question is put to Members on the Supplementary Estimates, they will have an opportunity to ask the Corporation and its Directors for further details. Nevertheless, there is always the matter of prerogatives, that is, when the information or documents requested are connected with matters of public administration as discussed by Cabinet, in other words, the confidentiality of Government matters in Cabinet must be maintained. That applies to all investigations made by Members of this House, the latter being always subject to the imperatives of Cabinet operations, according to British tradition.


REFUSAL TO SUPPLY TASK FORCE REPORT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I was aware of the Cabinet system, as is the Hon. gentleman, and I was aware of the importance of confidentiality, as he is. The question is whether or not it is in the best interests of the Government, the best interests of the truth, the best interests of all of the facts to have a task force report on the very subject that the Prime Minister has said would be open for
April 15, 1983

investigation by Parliament, which accepted his word yesterday. I would ask my friend not just to examine the text of the Freedom of Information Act but also to examine the ethics and morality in holding back what is an important report from Parliament's examination of this subject. I ask him to do that over the weekend and see if his answers might not be different on Monday.
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, my reply will be no different from the one I just gave, and the Government's position would be exactly the same. Yesterday, in answer to a question almost identical to the one the Hon. Member is asking today, the Prime Minister himself said clearly and in no uncertain terms that there would be ample opportunity to ask questions when the Supplementary Estimates were considered by Parliament. In fact, after discussions among Parliamentarians before the Committees, there is always time for making additional representations to obtain information the Members might require.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, due to the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There was a question asked by my Leader on March 29 regarding an incident in Manitoba where the Deputy Premier and another Member of the provincial Cabinet, as well as a number of Members of the Slew Democratic Party, participated in a rally in front of the U.S. Consulate, during which time a United States flag was burned. The question was asked of the Deputy Prime Minister whether the federal Government was going to take any action in view of the problem this incident would create for Canada-U.S. relations.
On March 30, 1983, the next day, the United States embassy sent a strong note to the Canadian Government, and I will just quote one line:
The United States must protest strongly the participation of Ministers of the Government of Manitoba in this event, which clearly gave it an official character, and would appreciate assurances that such official support of hostile demonstrations will not be repeated.
Will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the Canadian Government has responded with a note of very strong denunciation of this event? If so, could he tell us what was in that note?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, the Department of External Affairs did in fact respond to the note sent by the U.S. authorities. In our answer we explained to our American
Oral Questions
friends that provincial governments have no responsibility for conducting the country's external affairs, and that any action or participation in a demonstration by two provincial ministers could have no effect on relations between Canada and the United States. We have of course advised the Government of Manitoba of the contents of the U.S. note and of our reply.


REQUEST THAT TEXT OF CANADIAN RESPONSE BE TABLED
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he would be willing to table that response so that we would have the benefit of its exact words. And would the Minister also agree that this matter is not so easily taken care of, because one of the Ministers who participated is the leading spokesman for the Government of Manitoba in the United States on the Garrison Project?
It is one thing to say in diplomatic language that the provincial Governments have no effect or jurisdiction in external affairs-constitutionally, I recognize that-but, obviously, there is an effect. There is an impression created. Therefore I would like to ask the Minister, first, whether he would table that note; second, whether he would give us an evaluation of what effect he sees in terms of our representations in the United States on Garrison? What effect would it have now that the Manitoba Minister also heading the Manitoba delegation in opposition to Garrison?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, before I decide whether or not I can table this note in the House, I shall have to consult with the U.S. authorities.


REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Government knows, 32 years ago Canada signed the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, by which, under Article 31, Canada undertook not to punish refugees who entered Canada with false documents. The Minister also knows that for several months the Commission, in violation of this Convention, has been prosecuting refugee claimants before their status was examined, and only very recently discontinued this practice. Will the Government, therefore, now undertake to withdraw all outstanding false-document charges against Mr. Arunasa-lam of Sri Lanka, a refugee claimant, and against all refugee claimants until their claims are determined? Will the Government undertake to issue an apology to Mr. Adjekum, a

April 15, 1983
Oral Questions
Ghanaian refugee who was wrongly prosecuted by the Commission and wrongfully imprisoned for several months, but is now determined by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee to be a true refugee? Will the Government try in that way to make up for what it has admitted to be its wrong practice over the last several months?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, as Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that if he had given notice of his question, I would have been able to give him an answer. Unfortunately, I do not have the information I need to give him a satisfactory reply, but I shall be able to give him my comments on the subject next week.
parameters which were set publicly months ago were that there will be no Government bailout of any company with taxpayers' money. On the other hand, I have given the assurance to all the participants in the fisheries, particularly the fishermen, that, of course, the Government will never let that sector go down if there is a failure of one particular company or another. This is why, in the last few months, we have been working very hard with all the players involved, whether they are the banks, the Governments or the different institutions, to find a solution whereby that sector which is so vital to the Atlantic economy will be recapitalized and kept on a healthy basis.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Spadina had not risen quickly enough. He is now asking for a supplementary question and I will give him the floor.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the Minister tell the House whether any decision has been made by Cabinet on the restructuring of the corporate section of the Atlantic fishery? If so, when will the announcement be made? Can the Minister also give us any indication of what form that restructuring is taking?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: That restructuring, Madam Speaker, has reached a very delicate stage, and it is done under the supervision of the Cabinet committee which is chaired by the Minister of State for Regional Economic Development. So would you put your question to my colleague?


REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Minister tell us whether the Government, in view of its admitted mistake in practice in regard to refugee claimants entering with false documents, will now take steps to amend the Immigration Act to bring it into conformity with Canada's signed obligations to the United Nations in this matter?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I have promised to look into the matter, and I may point out the Hon. Member is asking me to admit to something I did not do.


EFFECT ON TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I think I will stay with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister will remember that during the Easter break I delivered a letter to his office in which I expressed the very serious concern among people in the transportation industry in Atlantic Canada, because almost all of them have advanced substantial credit to companies operating in the fishing industry. Their concern, of course, if this restructuring amounts to an extensive Government intervention, is whether those debts which are owing, and which are not secured, will be taken into account in any restructuring which does take place as a consequence of the deliberations of the Cabinet committee? It is a matter of some very grave concern to a number of corporations acting along the Atlantic seabord.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer in detail the question put to me by the Hon. Member, but I would just remind him that the


FISHERIES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South. Would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell the House if he favours the proposal put forward by the Government of Newfoundland for separating the deep sea fleet and operating it under a separate company with public sector involvement? Could he also tell the House why he has not appointed a president and chairman for the Canadian Saltfish Corporation?


Pierre De Bané: On the Hon. Member's first question concerning the separation of the harvesting sector from the processing sector, it is
April 15, 1983

certainly an idea worth considering. I can assure the Hon. Member that of the different options before our Cabinet Committee, none of them per se precludes that happening at a later stage. As he knows, Premier Peckford has said that he is not adamantly insisting that the separation, if it should ever happen, should happen simultaneously. As for the second question, my hon. friend is right and the Government will be moving on that question very quickly.


Madam Speaker:: I have a question of privilege in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


PRIVILEGE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the advertisement concerning the Crow rate which is going to appear in tomorrow's newspapers in at least ten cities in Ontario. I understand there is also a western version. From my understanding the ad will cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think this is a very serious matter which jeopardizes the rights of Members of Parliament. It is really very abusive and very much a contempt of Parliament itself.
First of all, Madam Speaker, this ad appears despite the fact there is no Bill on the Crow rate before Parliament. There is nothing in the Estimates now before Parliament or its committees concerning the Crow rate advertising. There was no reference at all in the Throne Speech about changes in the Crow or advertising the Crow rate.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The argument the Hon. Member is now putting forward in support of his question of privilege indicates to me even more clearly, if it had not been clear from the very beginning of his question of privilege, that he is obviously dealing with a grievance. It could be a very legitimate grievance, but the Hon. Member cannot seek priority in debate on that matter through a question of privilege. The Hon. Member has discussed this matter during Question Period, which makes it quite clear that he is not impeded in any way from performing his function as a Member of Parliament. Other Members have raised this question in the course of Question Period. That, I may suggest, is the right place and right time in which to deal with such matters.
I refer the Hon. Member to a very comprehensive ruling I made on this particular subject when other Members had raised the matter of the Government using public funds to advertise Government policy. That ruling, which is very comprehensive and which deals with the subject in a very exhaustive way, is dated October 7, 1980. When the Hon. Member reads that ruling he will understand that I have to interrupt him now to tell him that he obviously does not have the grounds for a question of privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you have had a chance to look at what I think are two precedents. One was a ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome in December, 1979 when a question of privilege was raised about the Government of the day establishing task forces comprised of-


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I looked at that precedent. If the Hon. Member looked at it, he will know what I said about it. That makes it even more clear. That particular ruling referred to Government funds used to pay expenses of Members of the House of Commons while doing work at the Government's request. It was expenses for a task force which travelled around the country and which was not constituted exactly in the way they usually are if they are to be funded through the House of Commons budget. That was a completely different issue. Although I looked at it because I alluded to it in my ruling, of course it does not apply.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I-


Madam Speaker:: Well, no, the Hon. Member is not going to discuss the ruling indefinitely. I have ruled that he does not have a question of privilege, and I cannot allow him to comment further on a ruling I have just made. The Hon. Member understands those rules and he also understands that he cannot force a debate under the guise of a question of privilege. This discipline has been accepted quite universally in the House, and I think it is to the benefit of the House that debates take place in an orderly way. No one should be able to force debate unless, of course, there is a basis for a question of privilege, which there is not.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: I wish to join in the subject matter brought up by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on the basis that this is a matter which concerns all Members on this side. It is not just a question of privilege involving the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville; it involves all Members on this side who feel very strongly about the Government spending taxpayers' money to advertise legislation before it is even printed in this House. It is one thing to advertise-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The fact that it concerns all Members does not give it the foundation for a question of privilege. If there is not a question of privilege for one particular Member, the fact that the concern is multiplied by a hundred does not make it a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville had no question of privilege, nor do other Hon. Members if they address the same question.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, this does not constitute the same question of privilege that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) raised, but my question of privilege relates to the variation of advertising across the country. Suppose that all Members of the House were consistent-


Madam Speaker:: No. I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that he is arguing the question, trying to extrapolate and find

April 15, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Waddell
other ways of determining that this matter is a question of [DOT] (,210>
privilege. But this is debate and I cannot allow it at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, with respect, I wanted to mention just one other precedent to you which was in the 1960s when the Hon. Member for-


Mr. Smith:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The question has been decided. I cannot allow any further debate on it. Those are the rules.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would just allow me to come to whether or not there is a question of privilege here and 1 will put it very briefly to you. Is there not a question of privilege when the Government advertises in Ontario one way about a piece of legislation and then in a different way in the Prairie Provinces so that there is a conflicting-



Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, today I am presenting a petition of 1,003 persons living in Alberta from locations in the Lethbridge area, all the way north to Beaver Lodge, all asking the Government to bring Bill C-671, an Act respecting the execution of Clifford Robert Olson, to Parliament and to pass it.
Clifford Robert Olson deliberately planned and then murdered at least 11 young people. He is now trying to become a hero for committing these dastardly deeds. Canadians from all over our land want him executed.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Madam Speaker:: No. Is it not obvious to the Hon. Member that those questions should be addressed to the persons who carry out that advertising? It is not a question of privilege; I have said that and I say it again. I ask him to read my ruling, which is very comprehensive, and then I think he will not have any further questions for the Chair about this matter.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) rises on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I may have inadvertently misled the House in that I referred to a letter of November 13, 1981 in Question Period. I said that the president of Canadair had misled a House of Commons Committee. I meant the Board of Directors of Canadair, and I hope to correct that in Hansard.


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,555.

ILLEGAL ENTRY AT PLACE DU PORTAGE, HULL, P.Q. Question No. 4,555


Mrs. Cossitt:: 1.	Is the RCMP investigating an illegal entry at Place du Portage in Hull, Quebec and, if so (a) on what date and at what time of day did the illegal entry occur (b) on what date were the RCMP notified of the entry (c) did the illegal entry occur on the 20th floor where the security and information branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is located and, if not, at what location (d) what were the names and job designations of all persons involved in the investigation?
2.	(a) What documents or classified papers, if any, were tampered with as a result of the illegal entry (b) were documents or classified papers concerning the Petro-Canada takeover of BP Oil tampered with and, if so, will the Government confirm that no unauthorized individuals received prior knowledge of the proposed takeover of BP Oil?
3.	Were the Hull Municipal Police notified immediately of the illegal entry and, if not, for what reason?
With respect to that matter I wonder if I might ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) whether he is in a position to tell the House whether a Bill dealing with the CDIC, the umbrella body for a number of Crown corporations including Canadair-


Madam Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member doing, continuing Question Period? I took his point of order, which was legitimate, but apart from that the Hon. Member cannot proceed with a question to the Minister.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. No. 2.
Unknown. 3. Unknown.


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


Madam Speaker:: The question mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
April 15, 1983



Does the hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) rise on a point of order?


Mr. MacKay:: Madam Speaker, I do not like to complain too frequently in the House about lack of answers to questions on the Order Paper. I usually wait for at least a year to go by. However, 1 want to raise a matter with the Parliamentary Secretary which will only take a moment.
1 had asked a number of questions relating to Canadair which have become increasingly relevant, and of which the Government had ample notice. I am referring to Order Paper Question No. 3,461. It has been on the Order Paper for over a year.
Madam Speaker, may I just very briefly refer to two questions of the series. The first one is: "Was there a loss, or was a loss forecast, on the sale or projected sales of such aircraft produced by Canada to date and, is the extent of such loss in the range of $1 billion?" The second short question is: "Is Canadair experiencing performance difficulties with the aircraft and, if so, what corrective measures have been or are now being taken regarding any difficulties?"
There are a series of these questions. With respect, I do not see why the Parliamentary Secretary could not expedite the answers because of the length of time which has passed and because of the relevance of the questions.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's point is well taken, and I will look into it and see if I can do something to facilitate early responses.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Nelson Andrew Riis: That this House condemns the Government for its outright rejection of the sound economic advice given by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Government's refusal to adopt the specific recommendations for alternative industrial strategies and the increased community ownership and control of industries where desirable.
He said: Madam Speaker, I believe that it is worth noting that this particular motion comes essentially on the eve of the 1983 budget. What we are doing here today is debating a statement that the Catholic Bishops made a number of weeks ago which reflected on the state of the Canadian economy and presented, from their perspective, a number of solutions. I believe, as conscientious, responsible Members of Parliament,
Supply
that we ought to give this statement some consideration. That is essentially the explanation of my motive for bringing forward this Opposition motion for debate today.
I believe we should congratulate the Conference of Catholic Bishops for its report entitled "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis", for a crisis it certainly is, and ethical reflections are certainly in order. With two million people presently unemployed in Canada, and many more being threatened with the possibility of job loss and lay-offs due in large part to Government policies, I believe that the situation involves not only an economic problem but, indeed, a moral problem as well.
There has been a great deal to say about the world situation in terms of the economic challenges facing western industrialized nations. There has been a feeling articulated from many quarters of Canadian society that the present situation is something which we must indeed accept, that we must tolerate it, that this status quo situation is something with which Canadians must learn to live, and that therefore the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), when he brings in his budget, must stay the course, must not do anything of any radical nature, "radical" meaning a major stimulus to the economy in one sector or another, or taking some dramatic and major action in terms of kick-starting our economy back to life.
I think it must be said at the outset that the problems being faced by Canadians today, in terms of the unemployment albatross which we find around our necks, and which is retarding efforts at economic recovery, are not the same as the situations one finds in all countries. I believe that it is not unreasonable to compare a country such as our own with countries such as Japan and Sweden, not that their solutions are directly applicable here in Canada or that their problems are the same as ours, but because our economies have some similarities.
I note with interest that not many months ago virtually a state of emergency was declared on the island of Japan because the unemployment rate had soared to the unbelievable and unacceptable level of 2.7 per cent. The Japanese Government said that this could go no further, that action must be taken of an emergency nature to stop the search toward these high unemployment levels. The Japanese know that with high levels of unemployment, economic recovery is impossible. This is something that Canadians, by and large, have ignored in our discussions of economic recovery.
Presumably, we assume that economic recovery can occur when two million out of a work force of 12 million are presently unemployed. I, for one, do not believe that that is the case. The Members of my Party believe that economic recovery is virtually impossible with this burden and weight upon our economic shoulders. We feel that now is the time to address this situation head-on in terms of identifying unemployment as an area of virtual preoccupation around this budget.
While inflation is important, and our fight against inflation must never cease, to put all our energies, to focus all our attention on fighting inflation, would be attention and energy

April 15, 1983
Supply
misdirected to a certain extent. Surely, stagflation is our challenge today as opposed to simply inflation. Again, I refer to the country of Sweden, a country not unlike Canada, other than its size. However, the strength of its economy is based by and large on natural resources, a talented population and available capital. Again, that country decided that it was reaching a state of crisis when its unemployment levels had surged to 3 per cent. The realization existed in that country that drastic measures had to be introduced to reverse this trend. Those are progressive steps and ideas. They are countries which put the welfare of their people as their highest priority.
That is essentially what the Catholic Bishops have said. Our Judeo-Christian traditions are based on the principles of respect for the human person, caring and compassion. These principles are practised not only by helping the victims of misfortune but also by attempting to eliminate the causes of this misfortune. The Bishops have essentially asked a fundamentally valid question that we should also be asking here. They asked: do we see society as a machine for the generation of wealth and individual Canadians as mere cogs in that machine, or should our economic activity and production of wealth have as their primary goal the well-being of Canadian citizens?
The Bishops see economic activity as the way to achieve social justice and they consider that economic development can be used to guarantee a level of well-being and dignity for every citizen. Alternatively, others see it quite differently. They view economic activity as a battlefield and an area where the survival of the fittest is the name of the game in which the strong survive and the weak fall.
Since the Bishops made their comment, I have listened to one corporate leader and business lobbyist after another either strongly or quietly condemn the Bishops' position and their involvement in this discussion. These businessmen see our economy as a battlefield where the strong survive and the rich deserve all they have, and that the poor and unemployed are in that position by and large as a result of their own fault. This is simply good nineteenth century laissez-faire economics. There is not anything particularly new about this philosophy but when applied to the 1980s, it is somewhat outmoded. The businessmen believe that, while certain measures must be taken to keep people from rioting in the streets, the status quo must be maintained at all costs and the ratio of rich to poor must not be altered.
What is the ratio? Let us recognize that the top 20 per cent in our country receive 42.5 per cent of total personal income while the bottom 20 per cent receive 4.1 per cent of income. As the Economic Council of Canada identified recently, the gap between the most and least affluent in Canada is growing. In other words, like the gap between the rich and poor nations, the gap between the rich and poor Canadian continues to increase in spite of the good intentions of various levels of Government.
Between 1970 and 1977, wealthy Canadians saw their wealth increased by 3.5 per cent and their debts decreased by 6 per cent. On the other hand, the neediest saw their wealth shrink by 13 per cent and their debt jump by 32 per cent. The Economic Council of Canada suggests that the combination of high interest rate policies and unemployment that has marked the 1980s threatens to accentuate this disparity even further in the years ahead.
I think the best analogy to describe how Canadians have traditionally approached our economy over the years is to consider a poor family in Canada today. This family consists of a father, mother and four children. Perhaps the father, being the sole income earner, has been laid off for a number of months and the family is now finding itself facing welfare as its UI benefits are exhausted. They decide that the way out of this malaise is to focus their attention on the eldest son and make family sacrifices so that he may perhaps obtain a further education which will enable him to succeed in society. He will then look after the rest of the family in later years. To accomplish this the family will have to make sacrifices, such as providing less food for some of the children and providing less funds to help them in their educational pursuits and general lifestyle. All the attention will be focused on the eldest son.
I believe that this is not an uncommon approach taken by Canadian families, and it is certainly an approach that we see taken with the Canadian economy whereby we tend to focus on a few members in society largely at the expense of the rest of society with the assumption that eventually there will be a trickling down of the good life. It is an assumption that after the wealthy few, or the catered to son, succeeds the rest of the family or society will be the beneficiaries.
We have seen this in recent legislation in the House. In recent weeks we passed legislation which will substantially reduce the marginal tax rates for upper income earners while the marginal tax rates for low income and middle income earners will remain about the same. In fact, they will pay slightly more because of the six and five program and the deindexing attached to it. Those upper income earners in society who earn over $100,000 will see a substantial drop in their tax rates. They will have more money to take home or to invest.
When one studies the Income Tax Act of Canada one has to agree that the loopholes-I will not argue about their positive or negative impact-are by and large designed to cater to the upper income earner. The average Canadian citizen has his or her tax deducted at source and there is very little opportunity to use the Canadian tax system to defer taxes or use it for investment purposes. Therefore, again our tax system caters to the upper income earner.
The Bishops have challenged some of the assumptions we have made about how we deal with our economy. Like many, they have recognized that the Canadian economy is going through a period of dynamic transition. Our economy went down a year and a half ago, and whenever it rebounds in the months ahead, if it does, it will emerge in a different form. The structural changes which have occurred in our economy have
April 15, 1983

meant that the many jobs which have been lost will never return, and new and different jobs will emerge. The economy which we have come to know in Canada will be quite different in 10 years or 15 years from now. This process of rapid and dynamic change is like standing on the beach and being beaten by the surf while the sand is washing past and one is sinking down.
The world around us is changing, but I wonder if we are aware of that change? I still hear people from most sectors of the economy and most regions of Canada saying that the economy is recovering and that it has bottomed out. Yet most Canadians see no evidence of this. I therefore wonder if we are grasping at straws and if, as parliamentarians, we want to believe that the economy is recovering and conditions are improving when it may not be so and the pain and human tragedy that over two million Canadians are experiencing will continue in this country for many years.
The Bishops say we have to work to change that and we have to implement strategies that are different from those we have used in the past. When you look at our past performance, it has been dismal. We have not addressed the critical issues facing the country.
I want to mention briefly, to remind us all, just what the Bishops said. Let me quote from their statement as follows:
In developing strategies for economic recovery, we firmly believe that first priority must be given to the real victims of the current recession, namely-the unemployed, the welfare poor, the working poor-pensioners, native peoples, women, young people-and small farmers, fishermen, some factory workers, and some small-businessmen and women. This option calls for economic policies which realize that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich; that the rights of workers are more important than the maximization of profits; that the participation of marginalized groups takes precedence over the preservation of a system which excludes them.
In other words, a totally new approach to economic recovery than we are presently launching in this country is needed.
The statement continues:
First, unemployment rather than inflation, should be recognized as the number one problem to be tackled in overcoming the present crisis.
The Bishops do not say that inflation should be ignored or seriously combated. They say that inflation should not be our number one priority at the expense of two million plus unemployed.
The Bishops go on to say:
Second, an industrial strategy should be developed to create permanent and meaningful jobs for people in local communities. To be effective, such a strategy should be designed at both national and regional levels.
In other words, obviously we should have a strategy of cooperation between the federal Government and the provincial Governments, and perhaps even the subregional Governments of Canada.
The Bishops' statement continues:
It should include emphasis on increased production, creation of new labour intensive industries for basic needs, and measures to ensure job security for workers.
Supply
Third, a more balanced and equitable program should be developed for reducing and stemming the rate of inflation.
The Bishops wrote that this requires shifting the burden for wage controls to others. In other words, let us not continue to fight inflation by and large on the backs of average working Canadians, but shift this burden to include upper income earners and introduce controls on prices and new forms of taxes on investment income, such as income from dividends and interest. The Bishops' report goes on:
Fourth, greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility in the current recession.
After all, these are the people out in the trenches. These are the people who are talking to the hard pressed, and who have been working with those who have paid the greatest price.
I go on to quote:
This means that every effort must be made to curtail cut-backs in social services, maintain adequate health care and social security benefits, and above all, guarantee special assistance for the unemployed, welfare recipients, the working poor and one-industry towns suffering from plant shut-downs.
Fifth, labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for economic recovery and employment. This requires the restoration of collective bargaining rights where they have been suspended, collaboration between unions and the unemployed and unorganized workers, and assurances that labour unions will have an effective role in developing economic policies.
Earlier in my speech I referred to Japan and Sweden, two countries that I suggest Canada may take a look at in terms of how they have been working to resolve their economic difficulties.


Jean-Luc Pepin: A few months ago you were talking about France.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Both Japan and Sweden recognize that organized labour and unorganized labour play a very critical part in recovery programs. They work to make commitments to meet that particular relationship and to encourage it.
In closing, let me say that we are in the midst of far reaching economic changes. I think we would all agree that new economic vision is needed as well as new tools, new approaches, new methods and new institutions at this time. Something has to be done. Many politicians seem to be tired and uncertain about the realities of our present situation. Business leaders have been prisoners of their own rhetoric, blaming workers for their excessive expectations and declines in the work ethic. Academic economists, secure in their tenure, play computer games and manipulate abstract numbers instead of facing the tragedies of the real world.
The Bishops have issued a challenge, to Canadians and Parliamentarians alike, Mr. Speaker. Let us hope that we can find it within ourselves in this year to face the reality of the unemployment situation and to do something about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Are there any questions?


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested, listening to the Hon. Member's comments, about the different way in which he indicated Japan and Sweden have attacked problems

April 15, 1983
Supply
similar to our own. Sweden's unemployment rate is somewhat higher than Japan's but Sweden has a very distinctly different way of dealing with these problems and its society is structured differently from Canada's. The situation in Sweden is to have very large, national labour organizations, but Sweden's approach has been to impose wage controls and to ensure, as a public policy, that inflation will exceed the increase in wage gains. It is a conscious policy to impose real wage losses on the citizens of Sweden.
On the other hand, Japan has company unions, not industrial unions. Japan's policy is that individual labourers and workers will set low compensation levels and then take profit sharing when times are good. They take real losses through a reduction in that profit sharing-loss sharing if you will- when times are bad.
Which of those alternatives is the Hon. Member suggesting is appropriate for Canada? Which one does he think that the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian labour movement in general would be willing to accept as an alternative to what we have now in this country?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I believe the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) missed the point that I was making with reference to those two countries. I was making the point that both Sweden and Japan have what we might call an economic recovery program in place. They have an industrial and an economic strategy in place so that everyone in those two countries understands clearly what it is the Government of their country is attempting to do. The Governments then ask the people to join in along with the banks, labour and corporations.
What we lack in our country is any idea what it is we are trying to achieve. We lack any direction. The Government simply says, "Let us pick on the Public Service sector and ask that sector to take a reduction in wages. That is our answer."
That was the point I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker. We have, if you will, a rather simplistic approach to economic recovery, and identify only a small, single sector of our society. We say to it, "You must carry the burden; you must carry the can". That is exactly what we should not be doing. If we had a very clear recovery program in place, then, I believe, we would be in a position to go to the various individuals and sectors of society to ask them to join in. But to ask people to join in a recovery program that no one understands or knows, I think, is asking a little bit too much.


Mr. Desmarais:: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is saying with respect to social justice being achieved through economic development. I presume we all understand that we are all consumers in this country and that we have producers. We will not produce anything unless we can get goods consumed. There is no other way of accumulating production and creating employment unless the goods can be delivered to consumers.
I might say that I agree with the Bishops' statement in which they exposed the problem. That is why I suggested to
the House at one point that we invite the Bishops. But my problem with them really is the solution. How do you achieve what is being talked about? One talks about co-operatives, increased production, job security, and at the same time about reduced inflation. We have been trying to achieve all of these industrial strategies. The Government has been doing that and we are doing our best to achieve those goals. I would like the Hon. Member to tell me of any other proper proposals. Also I would have liked the Bishops to tell us how we can achieve these ends in ways other than the ones we are employing now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me say that subsequent speakers from the New Democratic Party will be laying out precise suggestions in terms of the problems I have indicated. With all due respect to the Hon. Member asking the question, I am suggesting that it is not a matter of simply coming up with a number of suggestions, solutions or alternatives. The Bishops are questioning the assumptions we make in the country.
Let me simply identify one of the assumptions. I believe that most people in this room would say that the overwhelming motive in our economy is the maximization of profits. That is why people are in business and we have corporations. The idea-and we see it played out on a daily basis-is to maximize profits. The question the Bishops are asking is whether or not that should be the ultimate goal rather than the dignity of the citizens of Canada and the people participating in those enterprises.
That is not a criticism about the profit motive or the concept of profits. It is a criticism of the concept of the maximization of profits at the expense of human beings. I am from central British Columbia where mining plays a very critical role in our economy. I have seen mining companies treat human beings as if they were pieces of machinery and have no concern at all about their welfare. If the maximization of profits is beginning to erode, then 200, 300 or 500 men are simply ignored and the welfare of the particular community is totally ignored.
The Bishops are saying that we have to approach this differently, that we have to say, when a mine gets into difficulty and its maximization of profits is not as high as it would like, that there are ultimate strategies which could be built in.
I will return to the country to which I referred earlier. Sweden says to its mining companies that it has a program according to which in good times when they are maximizing their profits they will put some of them into a special fund so that during a period when their profits start to erode they can draw upon the fund and stockpile with Government assistance. In other words, there are a number of things which could be done to enable the community to stay in place and to enable those workers to receive paycheques and provide for their families, not what we see time and time again, that is, simply brute and crass ignoring of the human factor in the economy.
That is the assumption about which we are talking. Any recovery or proposal must take that assumption into consideration. That is what the Bishops are talking about, that we
April 15, 1983

should question some of the assumptions we make about the economy we have come to know in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), I wish to remind the House that there is one minute remaining in the question period.


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. I think there have not been any profits in the Canadian mining industry. I am not absolutely certain because I do not have the statistics here, but I believe there have not been any profits in the last 12 months. Taken as a whole, the Canadian mining industry has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. I am curious to know how we could pay people when there are no profits, and in fact there are losses. Who will pick up the tab? Is the Hon. Member suggesting that Canadian taxpayers should pick up the tab? Is that what he is driving at?
Most of us in the House would agree with profit sharing. The Hon. Member opposite and Members of my Party are fully supportive of profit sharing. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that Sweden may have an industrial strategy, but it has produced Government ownership of every major industry in that country. It has also produced the worst suicide rate in the world. In fact, when I was in Stockholm, it cost $50 to purchase a pair of galoshes. That is what the Swedish industrial strategy has produced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt Hon. Members but the time provided for questions and comments has been exhausted. Is there a disposition in the House to allow the Hon. Member to comment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent, so the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


James Aloysius McGrath: I did not
consent, Mr. Speaker, not out of any discourtesy or disrespect to the Hon. Member, but I know that other New Democratic Party Members will be speaking today and will have an opportunity to reply to that question.


Mr. Ouellet:: Oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I do not know what was the intervention of the Hon. Postmaster General, but I hope we will hear from him today before the debate concludes.
I for one welcome the Bishops' statement. I welcome it as a catalyst for focusing public opinion on what is, in my view, the most serious problem facing the country today since the Second World War, that is, an unprecedented unemployment rate since the great depression. If the Bishops have done nothing else but to focus attention and public debate on this, they have fulfilled a great need. Surely it must be obvious to everyone that debate in the House is certainly no longer
Supply
relevant in terms of stimulating public opinion or public debate. Indeed, one only has to look around the House today in the midst of this debate to see a dramatic exemplification of that fact.
If the Bishops are to be faulted on anything, it is on the wording of their statement. For example, I do not believe it was their intention to take the side of labour over management. I do not believe it was their intention to come out in favour of the communist system over the capitalist system, although the wording of the statement has a dangerous tendency to point in that direction. I believe the Bishops were trying to focus attention on the social consequences of a very serious problem. I do not necessarily agree with everything they said, but I certainly agree with their right to say it. I respect their right to say it and I, for one, am glad that they have said it.
I think what the Bishops were concerned about was perhaps best expressed in the paragraph of their statement dealing with the social consequences of high and long-term unemployment. It read:
At the same time, we have seen the social realities of abandoned one-industry towns, depleting unemployment insurance benefits, cut-backs in health and social services, and line-ups at local soup kitchens.
It continued:
And, we have also witnessed, first hand, the results of a troubled economy: personal tragedies, emotional strain, loss of human dignity, family breakdown, and even suicide.
I believe this is what prompted the Bishops to make their unprecedented statement in the first instance. Nobody can quarrel with their right to express that concern. Indeed, it was a concern that was supported by virtually all the Christian churches in Canada. If I recall correctly, the Primate of the Anglican Church made a supportive statement. The moderator of the United Church came out in support of what the Catholic Bishops were trying to achieve. The Presbyterian Church of Canada was supportive of what the Catholic Bishops were tring to focus attention on. Virtually all, if I can say it without being disrespectful, the mainline Christian churches in Canada supported the statement of the Bishops.
This is interesting and significant. The reason they did so was that we have a social crisis in the country of unprecedented proportions. One only has to look at and analyse the unemployment figures-unemployed heads of families, an increase of almost 42 per cent from March of last year. In March, 1982, there were 388,000 unemployed heads of families. In March, 1983, there were 550,000. There was an increase of 31.7 per cent in the number of unemployed women over March of last year. We now have 622,000 unemployed women in this country.
We then come to the long-term unemployed, which goes to the very root and pith and substance of the Bishops' concern, the plight of the long-term unemployed. There was an increase of 80 per cent over March of last year when there were
505,000	Canadians listed as long-term unemployed. As of

April 15, 1983
Supply
March of this year, that figure had jumped to 907,000 out of a total of 1.6 million unemployed. What is a person classed as long-term unemployed? Very simply, it is someone who has been unemployed for three and a half months or more. Generally speaking, we are talking about the exhaustee, the person unemployed so long that his or her Unemployment Insurance benefits have expired. I will return to that in a moment.
Let us continue with our analysis of the unemployment figures for March of this year. There was an increase of 26.2 per cent in the number of young people unemployed over March of last year. In March of last year, there were 492,000 young people unemployed. Young people, as defined by Stats Can, are those between the ages of 15 and 24. That figure jumped to 621,000 in March of this year. This is on the eve of another half million young people coming on the job market from our universities and post-secondary institutions with no hope in the world of obtaining jobs.
If I can be personal for a moment, yesterday there were two young people in my office, both having obtained their Master's degree with majors in Government Administration, both bilingual, indeed one with a working knowledge of Spanish and German. These people have no job prospects. They were excited as all get-out, proud as could be of their accomplishments, with every right to be proud and every expectation to be excited, but what are their prospects for a job? Virtually nil. Therein is the tragedy of our country. We cannot fulfil the expectations of these bright young Canadians coming on to the job market. Within a very short time we will have over one million young people without jobs or job prospects.
We then come to the bottom of the list, the discouraged worker. I can speak with a great deal of feeling about the discouraged worker. I come from a Province that now has an official unemployment rate of almost 21 per cent. Therefore, I have firsthand experience with the problems of the discouraged worker.
During the course of the Easter recess, every day I had these people come to my office, hopeless in their plight, no fuel to heat their homes. Many had no food to put on the table for their families because they could not qualify for welfare payments. The Province had to cut back because of the tremendous demand for welfare.
What do we have in this country in terms of discouraged workers, those who have given up, those with no job prospects? Statistics Canada does not even include them among the unemployed because they have given up. There has been an increase of 30.4 per cent from March of last year. In March, 1982 there were 92,000 discouraged workers. Today there are more that 120,000 discouraged workers with no job prospects.
What kind of country have we presented to our young people? What kind of prospects have we developed for young people coming on to the job market when we have so many discouraged people unemployed, so many who are classified as long-term unemployed?
What has been the Government's response? I believe the lack of a response by the Government prompted the Bishops to
intervene in the first instance. Let us take one facet of the Government's response which deals with those in "dire straits". Who are these people in dire straits? We are told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that nobody in dire straits in this country will suffer.
According to the Government, those in dire straits are persons who are classified as Unemployment Insurance exhaustees, those who have no Unemployment Insurance. They are coming on to the statistics rolls at anywhere from
60,000	to 100,000 a month in the way of response.
We have the NEED program, a program calling for the expenditure of $500 million. Let us look at what the NEED program has produced since it commenced in November of last year. To date it has produced 3,267 projects for a total of 32,273 jobs, at a total expenditure of $188 million. We spent $188 million to create 32,273 jobs to satisfy the Government's conscience in terms of dealing with those in dire straits, the Unemployment Insurance exhaustees, those coming on to the statistics rolls every month their Unemployment Insurance benefits having expired.
Is it any wonder that the Bishops of Canada found it necessary to make the statement they did at the beginning of this year? As leaders of a major Christian community in this country, in all conscience they had an obligation to speak out, and speak out they did.
When you look at the welfare rolls of the country, you see 1.8 million Canadians who are not even classified in terms of the unemployed because that is a separate statistical data altogether. There are 1.8 million Canadians who depend upon welfare at this time, a significant increase over last year. Where are these people who depend upon welfare? Many of them are in Provinces which had to cut back on welfare because of the 50 cent Canada Assistance Plan dollar. Because the Provinces had to cut back on welfare, they have had to be more discriminatory in terms of who gets welfare and who does not. The result has been genuine hardship in this country. That speaks to the obligation of the Government which created the situation in the first place by its monetarist policy. That was responsible for the loss of half a million jobs since the recession began. The Member can laugh, but the direct consequence of the Government's monetarist policy has been the loss of 550,000 jobs since the recession started.
We have to replace those jobs before we can even address the problems of the long-term unemployed, those coming on to the job market, the young people and native people. After two months, we finally succeeded in getting the Government to strike the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. It is not without coincidence that this Committee did not meet in the midst of the Bishops' statement, in the midst of the monthly unfolding of these unemployment figures. I propose, as one of the first acts of that Committee, to call the Bishops before the Committee so that they can further explain their position and directly address their concerns to the Parliament of Canada.
April 15, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1:00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
O)
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the luncheon adjournment I was reviewing the climate in which the Catholic Bishops of Canada made what could, I suppose, be described as their precedent-setting statement on the state of the Canadian economy. I was referring to the unemployment situation in Canada as it affects different groups, particularly the plight of the long-term unemployed. I was about to speak on the subject of the Government's response to the serious unemployment situation, especially to the plight of the long-term unemployed, those in dire straits, those who are now described as "exhaus-tees" and no longer qualify for unemployment insurance. The Government's response to the exhaustee situation-although I dislike that term-or those in dire straits, was the NEED Program which was introduced in November, 1982 and which has a budget of $500 million. This Program has created to date 32,273 jobs at an expenditure of $188 million. I believe that the best potential for job creation in this country lies with the private sector and with stimulation of the private sector. 1 understand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) may be moving in that direction although we will have to wait and see, certainly until the budget is brought down on Tuesday next.
I would like to put forward a proposal which I believe will be less costly and far more productive in terms of job creation than the Government's NEED Program. It is not a new innovation. It is a program which has been tried and has not been found wanting. Indeed, it has been successful. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to employment tax credits.
It is interesting to look at the brief experience we have had with employment tax credits, and I refer to the Economic Council of Canada in its report entitled "In short supply, jobs and skills in the 80's". According to them, the program when it was in effect for a short time, created 50,000 jobs for an expenditure of $100 million. What we have to bear in mind, however, is that these were 50,000 permanent jobs, not 32,273 make-work temporary jobs at a cost of $188 million. These were 50,000 permanent jobs created at a cost of $100 million. The employment tax credit program is a simple, clean, straightforward proposition. Its great advantage is that it can be targeted to meet the needs of various sectors of the work force. For example, it can be used effectively to deal with the problem of the high rate of youth unemployment. It can be
Supply
used effectively with the problem of long-term unemployment, and it can certainly be used and targeted to deal specifically with the problem of exhaustees or those in dire straits.
What we are talking about in Canada today, Mr. Speaker, is not an unemployment rate of 12.6 per cent. If you take into account the 1.6 million Canadians who are seasonally unemployed, the seasonally-adjusted unemployment, and if you add to that figure the 149,000 discouraged workers who are not counted as part of the unemployed, and if you add to that the
407,000	part-time workers or under-employed workers, those who are working under the various make work programs you come up with a real unemployment rate of 2,143,000, or a real rate of unemployment in this country of 18.3 per cent. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very, very serious problem.
I would like to conclude by quoting from the Bishop's report. I hope that it will be possible for them to come before the parliamentary committee. I can think of no better way of summing up than to quote from their report as follows:
There is nothing "normal" or "natural" about present unemployment rates. Indeed, massive unemployment which deprives people of the dignity of human work and an adequate family income, constitutes a social evil.
It is that concern which prompted the Bishops to make their statement in the first instance. It is that concern which prompts this debate in the House today. Hopefully, it will be that same concern which will prompt the Minister of Finance to act when he brings down his budget on Tuesday next.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to deal with this motion, especially because its subject-matter, I know, is a source of tremendous concern to a great many Canadian men and women. In a little while, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) also will deal with this issue, so that the House should have a clear and definite idea of what the government's official position is on the issues which the Canadian Bishops addressed in their pastoral letter made public in early 1983.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize the fact that the government sees eye to eye with the Canadian Conference of Canadian Bishops about the problems which are being faced by-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Isn't this question period?


André Maltais: No, it is not a question period; it is the time for debate, I believe.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this the question period now or-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is normally a question period. That is perfectly right. The Chair did not recognize the Hon. Member rising to ask questions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I stood up.

April 15, 1983
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In that case, the Chair was in error and will recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) if he would like to ask a question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps it was my fault.
I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-perhaps two very short questions. I wonder if he could tell me if he agrees with the statements which have been made by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the other leadership candidates for the Conservative Party that, really, Government should get off people's backs, Government should be restricted fairly drastically, and leave it pretty well to the private sector, as the Hon. Member seems to indicate in his speech? In other words, does he agree that job creation should be left to the private sector? Does the Hon. Member agree with what the Hon. Member for St. John's West has said?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with everything the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) says, but he does say some very sensible things and I often agree with him. I believe all the candidates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada believe, as I believe now and the Minister of Finance believes, that the best opportunity we have to create jobs in this country is through the private sector. Certainly, our experience in terms of make-work projects and programs which have cost the taxpayers of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars, has been that it has been a dismal failure. If we take a look at the experience of the communist socialist Government of France, we can see what massive public interference in the economy can do to what was a fairly stable and healthy economy.
Certainly, I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector is the best chance we have of creating jobs, bearing in mind, of course, that there will always be a need for the kinds of ongoing programs to provide for summer youth employment. Indeed, there is a need, as the Prime Minister himself indicated a year or so ago, for the Government to get on with a public works program in this country, to build public buildings, to provide infrastructure services, sewer services, water services and that kind of thing. There is a need for both, but certainly there is a dramatic need for some kind of incentive and stimulation to the private sector to provide jobs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member not being a bit inconsistent in the sense that some leading private industry spokesmen have said they do not intend to create jobs in a big way in the next year or so? They were interviewed by The Toronto Star after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had spoken in Toronto. So is there not an inconsistency there?
Secondly, in his speech the Hon. Member talked about the two young people who had MAs in Government administration and he asked what are the prospects for their jobs? He said: nil. There lies the tragedy; we cannot deliver jobs to them.
Now, was he just giving us bafflegab about these people, or how is he going to provide jobs for people with MA degrees in Government administration when he wants to turn just about everything over to a private sector which has not been and does not seem to be prepared to create jobs in the next year?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I leave the bafflegab to the Hon. Member who is so good at it. But, in response to the first part of his question, let me say that it is precisely for that reason that we in this Party are strongly advocating that the Government bring in a program of employment tax credits. There is no incentive out there now to create new jobs because of the consequences of high interest rates and the bankruptcies that this has caused.
In so far as the second part of the Hon. Member's question is concerned, I see no inconsistency at all. The Government has got us into this mess because it has grown so big as to deprive people coming into the work force of normal career opportunities in the Government because it is now in such a mess it has to put back. I see no inconsistency in that at all. I believe that is a tragic situation.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member considers that the reason private enterprise is not able to employ people is high interest rates, would he not agree that high interest rates themselves were determined by private enterprise without Government intervention? Many of us in this corner of the House asked the Government repeatedly to intervene, and it regularly refused. In effect it said, let them find their own level. Members of the Conservative Party expressed their agreement with the Government. The former Leader of the Conservative Party, when asked in public how he would react regarding an interest rate policy, said, "Well, we would do the same thing as the Government has done".
Since the Hon. Member's Party agrees with the high interest rate policy, since that policy was in fact determined by private enterprise, does he then agree that it was private enterprise through high interest rates that killed employment?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hundreds of small businesses in this country which have gone under as a consequence of high interest rates will be intrigued with the Hon. Member's economic theory. They had aboslutely nothing to do with high interest rates. It seems to me that interest rates in this country are established by the Bank of Canada, and I would have thought the Hon. Member would know that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the-


Mr. Roche:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that the speech we are about to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary is the Government's response to this important motion brought forward? That the Government thinks so little of what the Catholic Bishops have to say that-
April 15, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. I am sure that in the course of debate the positions of various Parties will be made clear.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, my response will generally reflect the Government's position on the motion presented by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).
As I started to say earlier, Mr. Speaker, Parliamentarians on this side of the House agree with the comments made by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. However, to avoid any confusion in this debate, I think it is important to point out right away that all Members, on whatever side of the House they are sitting, in fact every one in general is aware of the very serious problems we are having with unemployment. I do not think anyone is going to downplay this problem. Everyone is aware that economically speaking, we in North America, as in all industrialized countries, are experiencing problems that are directly related to major economic changes, which in turn are the result of a host of internal and external factors. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make myself quite clear, and I hope my message will be correctly understood on both sides of the House as it regards comments on the present situation as reported by the Bishops and by other groups as well. We share their anxiety and we are very sensitive to the problems described by the Bishops.
However, where we must make a distinction is on the procedure for helping people who are affected by the recession and for introducing the economic and social reforms that would bring about full employment. Here, we find a wide range of opinions being put forward and supported by various schools of thought. On both sides of the House, we have people with views on how the recession should be dealt with, either temporarily or permanently. Where these opinions vary most in connection with the Bishops' letter, is on how to deal with the post-recessionary period. How should the rules of the game be changed? Should we take a more Marxist reading of the facts or should our methods be more on the socialist side? Or should we apply more capitalist methods? Should we have a mixed economy with Government involvement or a strictly free enterprise economy? That is a very important point. We on this side of the House are certainly not rejecting out of hand certain proposals made by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. However, before deciding in favour of a given measure, we would like to have a meeting to allow the parties to explain, on the one hand, the Government policies that are now being introduced, and on the other hand, the proposals made by the Bishops in their report.
Even within the Conference, there are bishops who disagree on the best way to overcome the recession. I think that here there is a very clear distinction. We on this side of the House think that it is perfectly normal for the bishops to make statements on social and economic problems. It is their duty to do so. But as far as the means to deal with these problems are concerned, there are a number of different concepts, and I
Supply
think this is amply demonstrated by the ideas being expressed on all sides of the House and supported by all kinds of people with degrees in economics. There are about as many proposals for dealing with the recession as there are PhDs!
We must find a compromise solution that will help us progress on an ongoing basis. That is the crux of the problem today. If we look at other countries, we see that when the French elected their new Government, they were counting on socialist measures to provide a solution to their financial problems. After two years, experience has shown that the hoped-for financial miracle did not come through.
We have seen the same phenomenon in the United States. When the present President was elected three years ago, voters were counting on measures that were directly based on a capitalist system and that would steer clear of social measures as much as possible. They are having problems as well, while here in Canada, the Government has tried to use a little of both. Should we therefore opt for a radical change in the rules of the game?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the question should come from Members opposite, since, when Mr. Clark's Government was in office, it did extend Mr. Bouey's mandate for another seven years following discussions, I presume, with the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Presumably, Mr. Bouey at the time laid out his own guidelines and the information he gave to the then Government, which saw eye to eye with the thinking, the aims and the means advocated by the Governor of the central bank, prompted the Progressive Conservative administration to extend Mr. Bouey's mandate. Well, we too, enlightened by economists of every description led by Mr. Bouey himself, did check to see what could be done to change the system and to improve significantly the lot of Canadian men and women hard hit by the recession.
Mr. Speaker, unless one does not care whether one's partisan colours are showing, one is forced to admit that all countries of the industrialized world are looking for a way out of the doldrums, and we are not going to solve the problem by stating simply that we must accept or reject the proposals advocated by the Conference of Bishops. Of course there is an extremely simple way to solve the problem. All we need do is to reduce drastically our efforts to promote the personal freedoms of Canadians throughout the country, tag nearly every one of them and put them to work on so-called community projects. The result would be a fantastic drop in the unemployment statistics.
However, what makes the real value of a people or a nation? Two factors: first, their freedom within a well-defined economic, social and political structure, second, the work ethic. That is very important. Evidence of that can be seen when we introduce various programs such as NEED or CCDP, projects

April 15, 1983
Supply
which are usually sponsored by organizations and people are free to accept or reject them since nothing is compulsory. Personal freedom is indeed one of the elements of our system.
The question then is: how do we achieve full employment? I think that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) gave a good answer earlier today. It is a question of a consumer system which is based on profit, on reinvestment, on a wide ranging market. We are living in a market economy. Would the system be any better if our economy were based simply on a closed market, on a rather socializing market where the state would decide where we work? The state will decide where we go, but I am not sure that the answer lies there.
Among other things we heard from the Conference of Bishops, they stated that perhaps we would be well advised to go back to traditional forms of work. Perhaps I ought to define what that means. If we take fishermen as an example-and the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is quite familiar with that sector - theirs is a traditional form of work, except that if they want to market their products, they have to resort to extremely competitive and modern practices precisely to be able to open up new markets and create jobs. When it comes to farmers, I should think that very few of them would be prepared to revert to the so-called traditional methods. In that respect alone, we should call an important meeting with the Conference of Bishops to establish exactly just what would be the consequences of going back to rather outmoded practices and replace machinery by sheer human strength. I think that it could be the topic of an interesting debate.
A second fact was pointed out following the statement made by the Assembly of bishops, by Monsignor Cauley, Auxiliary Bishop of Montreal, who stated that either the husband or the wife in a married couple should withdraw from the labour market to enable someone with a greater need to take a job. But then you would be infringing on individual rights and freedoms, because both husband and wife are entitled to plan their career and to work. Should the Government legislate to compel one of them to resign for the benefit of the other? I think that those quite important facts of life should be considered before suggesting that any such option should be chosen.
Another factor should be considered. Is private entreprise still relevant, considering the Bishops' message? And if so, under what form? Nothing has been defined as such in the Bishops' message except that it would obviously be important to deal with this issue. On this side of the House, we are not turning down the message delivered by the Assembly of Bishops. On the contrary. We even find that this message is a challenge to the imagination and the spirit of creativity and should be taken up to provide real and continuous assistance to Canadians who want to work. This recession has made us realize that work which used to be considered by Canadians as being an ordeal or almost as some kind of a misfortune, is now
a privilege. I come from a part of the country which has been dangerously plagued by unemployment in private and public companies both involved in the iron industry. In my area, we have Wabush Mine, Quebec Cartier Mining, Iron Ore, and Sidbec also which is a public company. And if they cannot sell their ore, the same decision has to be made whether it is a public or private company, namely workers have to be laid off. If the message of the Bishops were applied to the letter, would it solve this problem? I think that the question has been well put, but that the answer is more difficult to find.
On the other hand, some changes are certainly necessary within our political system. For instance, because of the way the labour market works at the present time, it is very difficult for a young person to get a job since the unions try to protect the workers already in place, which is normal since the basic role of the unions is to protect their members and give them the best income and the best working conditions possible. This is quite normal. However, could we not establish a system of apprenticeship which would allow young people to join the labour market without threatening the jobs of their seniors, of unionized heads of families? I believe that there are openings to consider in this regard. We are willing to do so in cooperation with the unions.
On the side of management, improvements could certainly be made. For instance, what are the five year development plans to private companies? It is very difficult at the present time for politicians and unions to work in good faith. We seem to be playing cat and mouse. Finally, all the cards are rarely put on the table, which means that it is very difficult for everyone to be honest with each other. A lot of strategy is involved and the good will and good faith of workers is often questioned, I believe.
Yet, people want to work. This is self-evident. People want to work, but perhaps there is a lack of imagination and creativity, and instead of each side accusing the other, it would perhaps be better to have labour, management, government and non-organized workers sit down together to determine whether certain aspects of the social contract should be changed because the way the situation is evolving at the present time is truly tragic. Suicide among young people was mentioned this morning. But what about heads of families who not only have no job, but no hope of getting one?
Young people should certainly not be expected to start a family or to acquire permanent assets at the present time! They have no permanent job. The government is extremely sensitive to this situation, but there is no consensus about a solution, not only in Canada, but also in the United States and Europe. Would it be a good thing to import the Swedish or the Japanese system as suggested by the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (M. Riis) this morning? Some things may indeed be possible. But to come up with a motion blaming the government for refusing to accept the Bishops' message, this is
April 15, 1983

unwarranted. We did accept the Bishops' message. And again we say that we would be ready and willing as indeed we said in a letter signed by Members on this side of the House, and perhaps we should have invited other members to sign that letter. That letter did not condemn the Bishops' statement. There is a distinction to be made namely that when the Bishops speak, we assume that as Christian leaders they are referring to matters of faith. But economic problems are not to be confused with ethical ones. There is a line to be drawn between worldly matters and spiritual matters. Nothing more was meant in that respect. And we hope that in the future, Mr. Speaker, the Bishops will again make their views known on various matters, except that when it comes to solutions, as much as we do not have a monopoly on economic truths, neither do the Bishops.
Of course, in both cases it is through an exchange of views that we can arrive at the best understanding possible with respect to the betterment of people of all denominations, and also of people unrelated to any religious group. And at this stage, it is truly important that the difference be clearly established in this House, because after the Bishops put out their message there was some sort of reluctance. But it was never intended that the Government should remain insensitive to that message, and I for one can say that to a large extent my constituency has been socially and economically developed by priests and members of various religious orders. When referring to Schefferville, let us never forget that Monsignor Scheffer came from Ottawa; he was an Oblate priest from Ottawa who went out as a missionary in that vast territory. The Oblate and Eudist priests were everywhere in the Fort Chimo area, the Ungava, the Middle North Shore and the Lower North Shore, and they did a tremendous job, as did the Protestant ministers. And if the North Shore enjoys such high standards socially, politically, culturally and economically, it is thanks to the various religious orders.
So there was never any question of blaming the Bishops for their message. However, Mr. Speaker, before concluding , since I know my time is rapidly coming to an end, I would like to stress the importance of the choices this Government had to make. I for one, in August 1981, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister condemning the high interest rates that were then hovering around 21 and 22 per cent. In addition, ten Members from the Montreal area signed the letter again asking the Prime Minister that more be done for job creation, but we had to operate in the face of those two simultaneous problems, inflation and unemployment. Several Members from this side of the House have said it repeatedly; With inflation, we can always live; with unemployment we cannot. I think that was also clear.
Now we find that thanks to the policies implemented by both the Canadian and American governments, inflation has abated in a dramatic way, and so much the better for this
Supply
country. At the level of job creation, we must do everything we can to create permanent employment. The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was quite right in this regard. Programs such as the CDP's and NEED are useful in the short term, but we must do more in the long term. People in northern cities such as Sept-Iles and Port Cartier, just like people in other constituencies want to have permanent jobs for the young people to develop, because our most important shortage is not a shortage of money, but perhaps a shortage of ideas and creativity to make it through the crisis and guarantee that we shall never again be in the same situation. That is the most important, and I believe that we all share the same concern in this regard, namely .. . Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I still have five minutes left, but if I may have another five minutes, I could conclude my comments. Could I have the agreement of the House to go on for a maximum of five minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do Hon. Members have questions for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member making the speech for the Government referred to a statement that he and four of his colleagues on the Liberal benches signed on February 3 which was not supportive of the Bishops' statement at all, as he tried to say. It was a statement which was very critical of the Bishops's statement. As a matter of fact, that statement, from which I quote directly, accused the Bishops of formulating a Marxist theory on the current operation of the capitalist system.
I want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is still of the view that what the Bishops said was a Marxist statement and why the Government is being represented by an official spokesmen who holds such a view?


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about how to interpret the bishops' statement. I believe that it is a matter of opinion. As Members of Parliament, those of us who read the statement thought that the authors actually showed Marxist tendencies in suggesting ways to promote economic recovery. I do not support the Marxist position about what we should do to put the Canadian economy back on the right track, and we simply explained at the time that certain points needed to be clarified. This is what I explained earlier in the House. It would perhaps be a good thing to meet with the bishops to clarify a few points. However, I would of course disagree with a Marxist policy to promote economic recovery.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important point and I will give the Parliamentary Secretary another opportunity to clarify his position. Perhaps the translation of his opinion was not precise, but I heard him say a moment ago that he is still of the opinion that the Bishops's document contained a Marxist tint. I want to know if it is his view that the analysis as

April 15, 1983
Supply
presented by the Bishops has a Marxist tint or Marxist flavour?
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the statement was a Marxist message. Not at all. I simply said that some elements showed Marxist tendencies. That is all I meant. What 1 should have said perhaps is that, on this side of the Elouse, and for my part, we are in favour of free enterprise, public enterprise and joint ventures. It is not by giving the whole economic system back to the Government that we can promote economic recovery. This is what I myself and other Members believe and this is what we support.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Parliamentary Secretary. In their statement three or four months ago, the Bishops mentioned that there was no equality in Canada. They said that the poorest 20 per cent of the population receive only 4 per cent of Canadian income while the wealthiest 20 per cent receive about 42 per cent. The Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Trudeau, often promised a just society 15 years ago, a society more equitable than during the fifties and sixties, but as mentioned by the Bishops in their challenge to Canadians, our society is still not equitable. There is still a wide gap between the rich and the poor. Why did you not do something to correct the situation during your 15 years in power?
Second, Mr. Speaker, the standard of living in Canada has gone down a lot since the sixties. At that time, Canada had the second highest standard of living in the world. We now have the nineteenth highest. Why? Why did you allow such a situation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am thinking of the time and I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member to ask short questions if possible.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, my first answer concerns the fact that the standard of living may have gone down in Canada. I believe that this phenomenon is North American and that it affects every industrialized country. In other words, in terms of purchasing power, we notice in Canada as well as in the United States or still in many European countries the same phenomenon that appeared 15 years ago but if you now consider the value of our Canadian currency as compared with French or Belgian currency, you will find that conditions are still worse in those countries.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, concerning the just society, if you look at the Department of National Health and Welfare to which is earmarked almost half of the Canadian budget, you will realize the various steps taken to provide more opportunities to the needy. It would take too much time to list all such measures, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps it would be advisable to send such a list to the Members but once again a great number of measures have been taken to help the more needy during the last 15 years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, I should like to ask a brief question, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Government has done many things during the last 15 years but I would like to ask him: If the Government has done so many things, why has so little changed, why is there still such a large difference between the poor and the rich in Canada, as the Bishops mentioned in their statement?


André Maltais: True enough, Mr. Speaker, there is still much to be done, and we should always strive to attain ideal conditions, except that it is unthinkable that we could attain them on a permanent basis so fast. However, if we consider the constant improvement in the Canadian standard of living over previous years, what is actually essential is to try and narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, and such is the challenge that we must now be ready to take up. This is what the Government wants to do. I think that next Tuesday night when the budget speech is delivered, parliamentarians and Canadians will realize that the Government has still shown much imagination in trying to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's speech and I found it interesting, particularly his analysis of the Bishops' statement having tinges of Marxism in it. I know the Hon. Member has studied political science and political philosophy but I would like him to identify the specific area of Marxism that he sees in the Bishops' statement. Can you give us a clear indication of the tinges of Marxism that he is identifying?


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that what the Bishops said was a marxist statement. In my opinion, their statement was in two parts, the first being a straightforward description of the woes Canadians are faced with today and with which we have no quarrel, and the second an analysis of the means to achieve economic recovery, emphasizing the involvement of the Government as though it was solely responsible for the economic recovery. Yet, under our system, the responsibility of the Government is to provide the proper political and fiscal context for the mixed economy with Government involvement to operate. It is within this context that I expressed views which were not quite consistent with those of the Bishops'. I felt that there were socialistic undertones in their statement. But like other Hon. Members on the Government side, I am quite willing to hear what the Bishops have to say to come to an understanding. This was and continues to be my position. I suggest that it is of paramount importance to define our system as a mixed economy with Government involvement which favours free entreprise. They recommended
April 15, 1983

to entrust the State with the control of the economy. I think that strictly speaking, a socialist system is one where the control of the means of production is vested in the state and not shared between public and private enterprise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question period has almost expired. There is time for one more question. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I should like to direct another question to the Hon. Member. I should like to read a brief statement in English.

I wonder if the Hon. Member thinks this quote is tinged with Marxism. 1 quote-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is about to put a long question, I must advise him that there is simply not enough time. Already the ten-minute question period has expired.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will refer to it in my speech, but I want to ask the Hon. Member this question.

Why did the Hon. Member challenge the Bishops and tell them to forget politics and stick to religion? To me, that is what the Hon. Member said today in the House and it is also what the Hon. Member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted for questions has now expired. The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) has the floor.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter this debate today. The subject of this motion is very important. I am pleased the Bishops came forward with their statement. It causes us to stop for a moment and do some thinking. The title of the Bishops' statement is "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis". It reflects on some of the concerns all of us face. The economic crisis is very important. My and my Party's particular concern relates to youth. By looking at the figures on the youth unemployment, I find today that over 600,000 young Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 are presently unemployed. We have a very serious crisis on our hands. This crisis becomes even more serious when we look at the number of graduates who will be hitting the streets this summer. They will be looking for employment opportunities and they will be competing with the many unemployed who have been without a job for some time.
I want to take a look at the Bishops' statement and also discuss what I see is the role of the church. I think the Bishops allowed us that opportunity by releasing this statement. I want
Supply
to look at the economic problems that we face in the country, and finally I want to talk about a few of the things I see as possible solutions.
As one looks at the Bishops' statement I find about five separate points that come forward. I will examine them one at a time. The first point in the statement reads:
First, unemployment rather than inflation, should be recognized as the number one problem to be tackled in overcoming the present crisis.
At first blush I would have no problem agreeing with that, with one exception. People on fixed incomes are the ones most seriously affected by inflation. They are the ones whose income is eroded by inflation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask the Hon. Members at the back of the House to recognize the fact that the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) has the floor?


Albert Glen Cooper: The people on fixed incomes are the ones most seriously hurt by inflation. Right now they may be slightly above the poverty level, but if inflation continues, they will end up below the poverty level. That is my concern with the Bishops' first comment.
The second point made in the statement of the Bishops reads in part:
It should include emphasis on increased production, creation of new labour intensive industries for basic needs, and measures to ensure job security for workers.
Essentially, what the Bishops were outlining is that there should be an industrial strategy. I have no difficulty with that. There has to be a consistent plan and a consistent direction that we as Canadians can work toward.
The third point in the statement of the Bishops reads:
Third, a more balanced and equitable program should be developed for reducing and stemming the rate of inflation.
As is obvious from my comments on the first statement, I was glad to see the Bishops' third point because I think the Bishops' first point is significant and important.
The fourth point in the statement of the Bishops reads:
Fourth, greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility in the current recession.
That sentence cuts right to the nub of the whole problem we face. Our social security systems are being severely taxed, for instance, the funds for Unemployment Insurance. A number of people are running out of those funds and are listed as exhaus-tees, and we can see that we have a very serious problem.
Maybe it is time to be looking at those of us who do not need some benefits who are still receiving them. For example, my wife and I are receiving a child benefit. In our particular salary bracket I do not think we need that benefit. Maybe it is time to stop and examine that question. Perhaps that money should be given to those who have a genuine and serious need. The Government could give that small cheque which comes to me to someone else and as a result we would provide for those desperately in need.

April 15, 1983
Supply
Returning to the Bishops' statement, it reads:
Fifth, labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for economic recovery and employment.
I found that particular statement very interesting. It sprung out of the page and created a great deal of interest because it concerned responsibility. What has been happening in unions and in other areas is that they have been prepared to fight for their own particular interests and concerns, but in fact there has been no sense of responsibility for other individuals for whom they should be working to create a responsible situation. In other words, a union which represents its employees must at the same time have a responsible concern for the corporation for which it works. Then and only then will there be cooperation and some kind of responsible approach to the problems we are facing.
At this point I want to talk a little about the role of the church in this entire area. I think the Bishops' statement brings that to the fore and provides me with an opportunity to look at it. If we look back at the first Christian church, there was a concern about looking after the needs of the poor and the oppressed. We remember that the first apostles were criticized because Armenian widows within the church were not receiving any kind of assistance or protection. They called a meeting and began to complain about it and indicate that they had a problem. The apostles sat down and said that they were right, that there was a very serious problem. They indicated that they would have to appoint a group of people to look after the basic social concerns of members of their society or their organization, the church. In fact, the person they chose was Stephen, the first martyr of the Christian church. It is from that point that we begin to see an emphasis placed upon the responsibility of the church to play a role on behalf of the poor, the needy and the oppressed.
1 speak as a member of a church and as someone who was raised in the church. I feel very strongly that the church should play a very, very responsible role in society, a responsible role in relating to people and in meeting the concerns of individuals. I am afraid that what has begun to happen lately-and I speak for my own church as well-is that we have transferred that basic responsibility which was talked about in the first church back to the Government or the state. For example, in some cases when widows or needy persons come to us, we say that we will help. We call the nearest Government agency, say that we have a particular individual with a problem and ask for help. There is a real need for the church to get back into that responsibility and to assume that role. The state can provide a certain amount of economic assistance, but there is no emotion or encouragement. I think that is a very important part. It is the human element of meeting economic needs. Therefore we need to see the churches move back into that realm of concern or that particular area which I think is so important.
I have some problems with the capital expenditures of churches as institutions. At this particular time they should not be looking at large facilities which take away their capital. They should be looking at the needs of the people who are members of the churches and at the needs of society in general.
To stand up at the podium and speak about the need to help the needy, the poor and the poverty stricken is not good enough. We have to meet with these people on a day to day basis, talk about their concerns and see what we can do to assist them.
Today we are looking at a number of economic problems. The Bishops referred to it as an economic crisis and indicated:
The present recession appears to be symptomatic of a much larger structural crisis in the international system of capitalism.
I read over that statement two or three times. I thought about it, and my conclusion was that that was probably not the problem. The problem facing us is the one about which Christ talked in the first church. Simply it seems to be going across the board, this business of greed and selfishness. That is the one problem that has been consistent throughout all the systems and processes through time.
Then we come to where we are at today. First there was big business. It exploited people. We have all heard the stories of children in the coal mines and of various other abuses. There was a need for co-operation between workers to protect their particular interests. Then we had big unions to give a balance to big business. I do not think that has worked. Now we look at another option, the third one being big Government or the socialist state. If we have big Government and the state distributes wealth, it will take care of big business and big unions. But I do not see it as being a solution at all because it does not address the basic, simple, responsible position of the individual having to be cautious of his relationships with other people and relating to these other people.
As demonstrated by the Bishops' statements and by things I have seen and heard for years now, on the one hand we have the Bishops making a clear and concise defence of their position and their concerns. On the other hand we have business making a clear and concise defence of its concerns and positions. In a sense we have theory on one side and practicality on the other, but there is no meshing of the two. The problem is that we just keep going on in a sort of blind, desperate fashion, achieving very little. In fact we need to sit down and look at some of the problems we are facing on an individual basis and at our responsibilities as individuals.
What do we see as some of the opportunities? One thing the Bishops mentioned was community ownership. This can mean a couple of things. One could be community ownership through public ownership or state ownership. In the other sense it could mean co-operatives. I like the idea of co-operatives. I think they can be a very valuable tool for allowing us as people and individuals to work together as employees and employers. We are all related because labour is of equal importance to management. I think the balance in a cooperative is very essential and very important, but there is another element through which I think we can achieve the same goals, and that is in the area of private ownership. Private ownership with responsible employers and employees can in fact develop a system which is of benefit to all concerned. If we have employers and employees working together
April 15, 1983

co-operatively and in a way which demonstrates their genuine Christian concern for each other, at that point we begin to address the basic problem we in society are facing.
Essentially I believe that big business will not solve our problem. Big unions will not solve our problem. The option we weem to be exploring more and more of big state will not solve our problem. It is still big. It is still impersonal. It is still numbers. It is still statistics. But it is not a genuine personal concern for individual people.
We have to do a little more thinking about these matters and we have genuinely to relate to people. As Members of Parliament that is something on which we have to focus every day. As I said a few moments ago, there are 600,000 or more young Canadians in Canada who are unemployed. Each one of them is a genuine person with a genuine, serious problem. There is no end to the personal spin-off problems which relate to the fact that they cannot find employment. We must relate to the individual.
In conclusion, I want to refer back to something which Christ said. In Chapter 5 of the Book of Matthew, Christ used the demonstration of light and of salt. He said that Christians were to be the salt of the earth and were to be an example. They were to provide flavour, ideas and all sorts of excitement in society. That is what He meant, that we as individuals should provide an example. When we provide that example and relate it one-to-one, we collectively begin to work on and resolve some of these very serious problems.
In conclusion, I thank the Bishops for coming forward with this statement. It has given us a good chance to reflect and think. It has certainly given me that opportunity. We do have some serious problems in this country. We have to start working on them in a charitable and selfless fashion rather than a selfish fashion, which we have designed, worked in and worked so hard toward over the past few years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to asking questions of the Hon. Member for Peace River? If not, the Chair will now recognize the Minister of Transport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) was indeed speaking on behalf of the Goverment, because I do not have very much to add to his statements on principles and practice. However, I shall be making a few comments of my own. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will agree with what I am about to say, because I want to point out that the Bishops' letter, as well as the statements made by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) concern a subject on which it is difficult to have a consensus. I do not think the opinion of the Liberal Party is particularly homogeneous, or that there is only one way to consider these matters. I am saying that we
Supply
have some leeway in these matters which the Lord's children are entitled to use.
The motion consists of three parts: first, it regrets that the Government rejected the economic policy set forth in the Bishops' letter. That is not the case at all. We do not reject it. We are sufficiently independent to be able to make nuances so that we certainly did not have to either accept or reject outright the contents of the Bishops' letter. So as far as that is concerned, the motion is entirely unacceptable.
The second part of the motion regrets the Government's refusal to adopt the Bishops' specific recommendations on industrial strategy. Once again, sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree, and we certainly are not going to refuse or to agree to adopt outright the positions put forward in that letter.
Thirdly, the motion deplores our refusal to adopt a community production system, and I imagine that community production is to be seen here as the opposite of capitalist production or State production. As far as I am concerned, it is one production system among many. It may be morally superior to the rest, but I do not think it is so outstanding that we should not consider other systems, and even the Hon. Member himself says in his motion, in the English text: where desirable. In that case, there is no debate, if the production system is the best one "where desirable". There is no debate, because there may very well be situations where such a system would be very desirable and others where it would not be desirable at all, and in the latter case we would not have to adopt it.


Walter David Baker: That is the problem!


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is indeed the problem! I am saying this in a friendly way, because I notice that the Members of the New Democratic Party are becoming more realistic in their aspirations. I get the feeling that they are realizing they do not have a monopoly on truth and virtue, and I like that. It was bound to happen.
I am taking part in this debate for several reasons. First of all, it is my turn to mind the store, and I thought I could usefully take advantage of this opportunity to speak to the House. Second, I have a profound though far from servile, respect for the Church and its authorities, and I think they will appreciate that.
Thirdly, I have always taken a lively interest in economic and social development, and especially in what is referred to as industrial strategy, and it should come as no surprise that I have a few things to say about it. I confess to having drafted a few speeches on that subject, particularly around 1972, and quite a few since then. And if, after my political defeat in 1972, I launched a trading firm, it was precisely because I believed that the means of implementing an industrial strategy were important and that the trading firm seemed to me to be

April 15, 1983
Supply
one of those important means which Canada did not have does not now have on a country-wide basis. There are many trading companies but, in my opinion, none has yet left his imprint throughout the country and the world.
As to the letter from the bishops, I regret to say in passing to my Liberal friends that it is regrettable that it sparked a small debate on the relations between the church and the state. I am very sorry because I do not think there is any justification at all for that. With respect to the relations between civilian power and religious power, the Gospel is not very categorical and says simply: Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God. But never does it say exactly what belongs to Ceasar; that complicates the problem somewhat and, indeed, leaves the question practically wide open. So much so that at different times and in different countries, there were different forms of relationship between the church and the state, ranging from theocracy to neutrality and separation; and all that was advocated by very honest followers, very honest young men and young women alike. The way I look at it, as do most Canadians I think, the bishops can say anything they want on any possible and appropriate subject, as long as they do not claim to be infallible. From that viewpoint, therefore, I regret, as does the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), that they do not speak out more often. I would like to hear them more often on social and economic subjects. Particularly from that point of view, for those of us who come from Quebec, they may be overreacting to offset an inordinately opposite trend in the past. Proper balance is required here as in many other things.
Of course, I will pay them more or less attention depending on the subjects they deal with. When it comes to ethical or moral issues, I take off my hat to them, they are outstanding experts. If they tell me to show respect for work, I quite agree. I applaud. However, if they tell me that intellectual or manual work is better than manual or intellectual work, then I put up an argument because it is not a moral issue. I do respect work, but I can respect various forms of work as well as various forms of work structure. If they proclaim that assistance to the needy is a priority, I bow in agreement and again take my hat off to them. I respect that, I am impressed, I cogitate, I meditate, I pray and I will act as well. But if they tell me that such and such form of assistance to the needy is better than such and such other form, if they tell me that the best way to fight against poverty is to create jobs rather than check inflation, I am prepared to argue. I will probably reach a compromise and say: why should we fight against only one evil? Would it not be better to fight against inflation and unemployment at the same time?
So I read the whole letter and I was duly impressed, and like previous speakers, I pay homage to them because their text is very easy to read, it is very impressive, and in my opinion, as the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said, it
was needed. Someone had to remind us of those things, particularly inasmuch as they relate to the moral issue.


An Hon. Member:: St. John's East.


Jean-Luc Pepin: St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I apologize for that lese-majesty.
In economic matters, the bishops are amateurs just like every one of us. For my part, I would have liked the letter to contain-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A professional amateur!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, and you are also a professional amateur, my friend!
It would have been a good thing if the difference, the line to be drawn between morality and economic theory and practice were more clearly marked and better expressed in the letter. This is what I have to say and as I have already expressed my views to my favorite bishops, it is certainly not a secret.
I would now like to say a few words about the Bishops' industrial strategy and that of His Eminence Riis, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. I am speaking not as an expert, but as someone who has some experience because, as I have already said, I have tried to write some statements which I reread at three in the morning and in which I made several extremely polished comments for instance about the difficulty to define what is an industrial strategy. Some will say that it is a comprehensive and specific plan which wraps up all sectors of the economy, including the social and cultural aspects, in the same package. Others will say that this is too pretentious and that an industrial strategy is simply an order of priority offered for consideration. Others still will say: No, an industrial strategy is a choice of means to achieve ends on which there is a consensus. In addition to all that, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap made a few wonderful comments earlier, such as:
"Now everything is changing rapidly."

And later on, he also said:

"We want a totally new approach."
[ Translation]
We want an industrial strategy. How can we have an industrial strategy which will apply all the time to every country when things are always changing and change may be the only stable value remaining in the world? How can we develop such an industrial strategy? It is absolutely impossible and this is why Canada has had industrial strategies in the past, why it has one now which may not be quite what each one of us would like, and why there will be a different one in the future. These industrial strategies make me think of the
April 15, 1983

prayer we have all said: As it was in the beginning, as it is now and as it will not be forever and ever.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to say is quite obvious. We all know that we can find as many definitions as we want according to the intellectual, moral and economic tendencies and interests of the person who is speaking. So, accordingly, strategy is all a matter of high technology, or growth sectors, on high productivity or labour intensive or resource intensive or capital intensive sectors. Each of those areas is important. What I am trying to stress is greater reliance on experience, flexibility and humility. There is one example that I always like to bring up. In my opinion, the greatest asset of the Japanese industrial strategy, which is the one most frequently referred to, is that it can change overnight. What gives the Japanese industrial strategy its strength is that they have powerful means and mechanisms which allow them to adopt rapidly and concentrate on a sector where changes are needed, while neglecting another which no longer has priority. In my opinion, that is the major aspect of the Japanese industrial strategy.
Now, what about the Bishops' industrial strategy? First of all it is based on an interpretation of the sources of today's global moral disorder. This has been mentioned by the Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), but I disagree with the terms he used. Since I am almost twice his age, he will allow me the following remark. You do not have to be a Marxist to appreciate the role of the economy in the development of societies and in the surge of moral disorder in particular. The Bishops' analysis is precisely based on economic factors. They refer to the flow of capital, the development of technology, automation, computerization and so on. Following on that analysis, they say that in order to protect capital, the main concern of governments now is, to control wages, services, to maintain order and so on so as to keep capital in the country. And when all this is taken into account, according to the Bishops, the concern for capital takes precedence over the concern for labour. It is one way of looking at it. I found this interesting, but I wondered how much truth there was in it. A curious mind always puts this kind of question to himself. Is it true that today's governments are limiting salary raises and improvement in services? Well, let us say that it has been true for the last year. One cannot justify an economic theory on a single year. It would have to be analysed over a period of several years to be proven accurate. Yet, if we examine such a theory, going back several years, it is not true. Nowadays, the workers, the people have many more social services than they had ten years ago. So, a theory which is only valid over a one year period is not a very strong one. That is what is annoying me in this theory. The Bishops, for whom I have a great deal of respect, call this the crisis of capitalism. Yes, but what ideology is not in crisis today? There is a crisis of socialism as well, a crisis of marxism, a crisis of communism and a crisis of all ideologies one can think of. All this is very interesting, but it is
Supply
questionable. However, it is food for thought, and from this point of view, it is welcome.
Then the Bishops present us with a series of principles they would like to see implemented: social responsibility, cooperation between groups and regions. They would also like us to give top priority to the fight against unemployment as against, I suppose, the fight against inflation. I am naturally curious. I looked at the document, which states that the number one problem right now is unemployment. This means that further along the line the number one problem might be one of capital, or the need for capital. However, if the concern is for the worker, if labour is to be the basic concern, the fight against unemployment should always have priority. Either this is an all-inclusive, an absolute principle, or it is not. If this it is not an absolute principle, then it is a relative one. But after having established the priority of labour principle, how then can they consider situations in which capital should have top priority! I am very ill at ease with that kind of reasoning.
Further on they advocate an anti-inflation policy which is more equitable. They seem to be pressing for some kind of a price control like the one we had with the Anti Inflation Board, which I had the pleasure or displeasure to chair. This also is highly questionable. It is quite possible both to attend mass and to believe that a six and five policy is a better approach to economic restraint than the one advocated by the Anti-Inflation Board. This is interesting, but questionable.
Further on, they say that we should tax investment incomes, refrain from slashing budgets and social services, maintain health services, help the unemployed. And then there is a phrase that I have not appreciated at all, one that I find fault with: "Counter to policies .. .advocated by governments." I did not like that. A distinction should have been made. They should have said: "Not enough" rather than "counter to". And looking at this ... I could recall three pages, five pages of measures taken by this Government in the areas of help for the unemployed, job creation, job maintenance, construction and so forth. It is somewhat boring to be told, "counter to policies advocated by governments". In my view, such a reproach is much too encompassing. And still further on, the Bishops are suggesting measures that are still more specific, some of which I would again like to argue from a viewpoint the opposite of that held by the Bishops. For instance, that kind of concern they have for labour-intensive industries. That also is questionable. And considering especially that the same Bishops, God bless them and me also, do not hesitate to state that external aid should take other forms than the mere supplying of wheat, or otherwise, that we should help developing nations create an industrial base, and so forth, and it is indeed in those so-called soft sectors that those developing nations have the best opportunity for industrial development.
There is a paragraph for instance where there seems to be not only contempt for, but to some extent, a fear of machines. That also was not to my liking. There are other places where

April 15, 1983
Supply
they refer to self sufficiency, the need to control foreign investments, not to have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. He could only continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. Are there any questions, then?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. Instead of publicly criticizing the Catholic Bishops who have leadership responsibility for half the population in this country, why did the Government, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), not deem it fitting and appropriate to meet with the Bishops to discuss their paper?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not keep track of the Prime Minister's agenda, but I remember vividly that he met some very few days before the Bishops' letter came out with the Catholic Bishops. My hon. friend must realize that this document was written by a committee of the Conference-I do not know the exact word-of the Bishops of Canada; it was not a document of the Conference. I recall, and I am sure my colleagues remember also, that the Prime Minister had met with them. However, this is not a document which is addressed to the Government of Canada. This is a document which is addressed to the population. I do not believe that Governments have to react to documents of this type, and answer them item by item. The Hon. Member was, I believe, wise enough and kind enough to put it on the agenda for today's debate, and I thought we had an opportunity to express some of our views on it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is referring to a meeting which took place with the committee of the Catholic Bishops on the nuclear question before the statement was issued. I would like to put this proposition to the Minister. Is the Minister saying that if a Cabinet committee brings in a decision, that that is not a decision of the Cabinet but merely of the Cabinet committee? That is the thrust of what he is saying in terms of trying to discount what the committee on social policy of the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops said by claiming they did not in fact speak for the Bishops. But surely the document is important enough, and the source is important enough, for the Government to sit down and discuss it with the Bishops, and I regret that the Government has not seen fit to do that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend can regret that. That is all right. I would like to ask him if he has met with his Bishop on the subject. I have. A number of my colleagues have also. That was one way of reacting and expressing our views. I do not believe a formalized meeting was needed to discuss each item. Again, my information and
knowledge is that the Prime Minister had met with a group of Bishops some very few days before this document was printed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to be present, Mr. Speaker, when the two Hon. Members who last spoke go to confession in front of their priest or their Bishop. It would be interesting. I wonder if the Minister finds it ironic, perhaps deliciously ironic, if I could put it in his words, that in the past the Bishops in Quebec called the Liberals the "rouge Marxists". Now we have a situation where the Liberals are now calling the Bishops Marxists. It is rather deliciously ironic, it seems to me. The Minister did not seem to indicate that there was need of an industrial strategy at all. He spoke of pragmatism, flexibility and humility, all qualities of his Prime Minister who put him into the transport portfolio.
I would like to know if the Minister feels there is need of industrial strategy, or can we just continue to float in the country? Does he not feel that it was inevitable that someone like the Bishops would respond when you have a monetarist policy which tries to squeeze inflation out of the country by putting people, ordinary people who can least afford to fight back, out of work, and which provides pretty big profits for banks and other groups? Does he not think that it was inevitable that we would have the Bishops or church people calling it immoral? Does he not think that we must in fact have an industrial strategy for the future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is a lawyer and he tends possibly to deform the thoughts of the criminals he happens to speak against. The Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) did not say that it was a Marxist document. He said there was a tinge. Perhaps someone can do that and get away with it in the sense that it invokes economic factors as the source and the cause of moral disorder in society. If I had been a Bishop I might have invoked the original sin as one of the causes. The preoccupation might have been slightly different. From that point of view, there is no doubt that the text has an economic philosophical preoccupation which reminds a person that he has already read that kind of preoccupation. All right? That is not being a Marxist. One can think without being stamped in that fashion. I said also that I was in favour of an industrial strategy which would be flexible, with all the words I have used to say it. I have said that I was in favour of an industrial strategy. I did say that, but I am reacting against the thought, the disposition, of some of those who see it as the nec plus ultra, the beginning and end of everything, and someone who thinks that some day some kind of genius, most probably from the New Democratic Party, will produce a document which will be called "The Industrial Strategy for Canada" and everyone will bow, and then the country will be happy forever and ever. That situation does not exist.
If I had the time I would read to my hon. friend some past documents of the NDP describing what an industrial strategy should be and I would show him very clearly that it has said everything on the subject in the past. At one point it was in
April 15, 1983

favour of concentration on the development of natural resources. Today it is on the manufacturing kick. Tomorrow it may adopt a service kick. Your Party has changed all over the place and God be blessed for that. It proves that your intelligence is stronger than the prejudices you entertain.


Louis R. Desmarais: If we have some time left, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister advise us briefly of his findings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is simply this. An industrial strategy is a very contentious subject. I think that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) is also involved, judging for instance from his recent statement that he had much more confidence in sectorial strategies than in one universal industrial strategy. That is a clever attitude, for surely the approach should vary when dealing with such diverse industries as the shoe, clothing or high-tech industries. I am sure he shares my views as to the importance of the approach. This should be emphasized. I repeat that an industrial strategy for Canada is a sort of ongoing process which never stops-it is not essential but existential-and it varies with the needs. In this context, to think as Members of the NDP and others do that an industrial strategy would cure all ills forever is a myth, and we should recognize it. To return to the Bishops' statement, I was very much impressed by some of the major and significant moral principles, views and recommendations which I found in it. But I also found views and concerns about various aspects of the industrial strategy which are highly questionable and which I just cannot buy. That is normal.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Jolly good, jolly good show!


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, when the Bishops published their statement they sought a public debate on these issues. They have certainly got one going in the country. In the process, as we have seen this afternoon, they have traded their image of promoting a comfortable pew for making the Government benches rather uncomfortable.
To begin with, I want to pay tribute to the Bishops as I separate what they said in the first part of their statement as a critique from the second part, which goes into recommendations. I want to pay tribute to them particularly for the publication of their critique because they made a distinct contribution to understanding the value system in our society which has led to a situation where, as my friend the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) says, we now have 2,143,000 real unemployed, or 18.3 per cent. I wish to pay particular tribute to the chairman of the social committee of the Bishops who produced this statement, Bishop Remi De Roo of Victoria, who in his personal leadership has exemplified a commitment to the gospel values that the Church espouses. It is a commitment to enhancing social justice throughout Canada and the world.
Supply
As I was informed this morning by the offices of the Canadian Conference of Bishops, so far this statement has resulted in literally hundreds of forums and workshops being held across the country as people of diverse religions are examining what the Bishops are saying. I think that is good. One of those forums will be held soon in Toronto under the leadership of Cardinal Carter.
I also want to pay tribute to him for taking the lead in implementing what the Bishops are saying, not just criticizing the state of the economy and lamenting high unemployment, but actually taking concrete steps through the Archdiocese of Toronto where some $4.6 million of the Archdiocese's money will be combined with federal and provincial matching grants to produce a work program for some 700 unemployed people in Toronto. They will be put to work on a vast range of projects. I think that exemplifies the Church coming to grips in a real way with the problems the statement addresses.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some weaknesses in the statement. In a moment I will come to what I see as a certain danger arising from the manner in which the statement was prepared. For the moment I will dwell on what the critique is all about and what the Biships are really saying. The heart of their argument is that the present economic realities reveal a moral disorder in our society. We see that in the massive layoffs of workers and depleting Unemployment Insurance benefits, cutbacks in health and social services, all of which constitutes a social evil in the Bishops' eyes. I say Amen to that; they are absolutely right.
But their critique goes beyond the current economic turmoil and is really aimed at the value system in our society. For we have indeed, sir, produced a survival of the fittest society. Our way of life is geared to those who can keep up with the economic system, which demands relentless growth for success. Public policies, well intentioned though they may be, legislate for the healthy of the economic system and then hopes someone takes care of the casualties.
Who are these casualties? The chronically unemployed, the unskilled, the poorly educated, the minority groups of Indians, Metis and Inuit, the disadvantaged, infirm, aged, one-parent families and inhabitants of depressed areas. All of this, sir, has been labelled by the Senate report on poverty, headed by Senator Croll some years ago, as an ugly subculture within Canadian society.
So it is not only the Bishops who are questioning the morality of the theory in which the poor are supposed to be better off when the rich get richer. The Senate report declared that "there is a call to conscience in this land of ours. No matter how we redistribute income, whether by taxation, fiscal arrangements, capital gains, transfer payments or tariffs, in a very short time the same people end up with all the marbles".
That, sir, is but one illustration of serious critiques offered about our society by people who are serious social analysts. Now, I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that he played on
24546

April 15, 1983
Supply
dangerous ground this afternoon, and the Government allowed him to do so. I gave him the opportunity to say whether or not he believed the Bishops' critique was tinged with Marxism. I say clearly and emphatically that it is not a Marxist critique; it is one that many social analysts are offering about our society today.
The Parliamentary Secretary put his own Minister in a difficult position in trying to get him off the hook. 1 believe that to charge the Bishops with a Marxist analysis in what they have said is to reveal a bias for unfettered individualism. If we are going to have a society where the benefits can be applied to the common good, then we will have to put in place not just what the Bishops are saying but what it represents with regard to the church's teachings for at least 100 years.
What the Bishops said in their critique is not essentially new. They get headlines for the manner in which they said it, but the teachings go back to the first social encyclicals of the church, Rerum Novarum in 1890, Quadragesimo Anno some 40 years later, culminating in the most important encyclical of church teachings in modern times, Pacem in Terris, published by Pope John XXIII about 1958. This sets out, not in just a critique but in capsule form, the values which must be put into place and protected by public policy.
This afternoon I want to put on the record the values of Pacem in Terris, which is the antecedent of the Bishops' statement which we are debating this afternoon. It lists a series of human rights as follows:
Every human being is a person, every person has the right to life, to bodily integrity, to food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care and social services, to security in case of sickness, inability to work, widowhood, old age, unemployment or deprival otherwise of the means of subsistance through no fault of his own. Every one has the right to respect for his person, to his good reputation, the right to freedom in searching for truth and in expressing and communicating his opinions, the right to be informed truthfully about public events, the right to share in the benefits of culture. Everyone has the right to a basic education and to suitable technical and professional training, the right to free initiative in the economic field and the right to work under good working conditions with a proper, just and sufficient wage. Finally, everyone has a right to private property with its accompanying social duties, the rights of residence and freedom of movement, of membership in the human family and the world communities.
That is the end of that quotation from that encyclical, against which we must test public policies to see how good we are at fulfilling those rights and, of course, we can very clearly see, on the whole question of economic justice and benefits, that in putting so many people into unemployment, they have been deprived of basic rights.
This quotation, which is at the heart of Pacem in Terris, found its way into what I would describe as the centrepiece of the Church's teaching on social justice, which is found in the "Constitution of the Church in the Modern World", which was one of the final documents passed at the second Vatican Council in 1965. In there we find, not a manifesto of specific answers to each of the world's ills, but, rather, a pastoral message that the church should put its ideas and values at the service of the human family. It is that approach which has won a sizeable following in the number of international seminars and so on which have examined what the Church taught in
terms of formulating a social teaching which is applicable to the modern world.
We see, in paragraphs 63 to 72 of the "Constitution of the Church in the Modern World", dealing with the socio-economic life, that the dignity of the human person is emphasized. It is stated: "For man is the source, the centre and the purpose of all economic and social life". The council declared that human labour must always be seen in its true dignity and that workers must never be treated as mere automata in the organization of a complex, productive process. What I would like the House to note is that the council stopped short of detailing what economic or political measures should be used to implement this teaching. Having kept the focus sharply on analysis and principles, the council did not impose specific measures which will always vary according to time and place.
We come to the second part of the Canadian Bishops' statement that we are debating here, for we see that they have plunged into specifics and, indeed, controversy. The Bishops wanted to be heard but, in so doing, they have diminished the acceptance of their valuable critique by risking the charge that they have entered into areas in which their competence as economists may provide some hindrance for them.
I just want to touch briefly on three of the areas. Indeed, the drafter of the NDP motion speaks specifically, not only in complimenting the Bishops for their sound economic advice, but also in speaking of the adoption of the specific recommendations which are contained within the Bishops' statement. 1 think that the authors of the Canadian Bishops' statement may be a little nervous at having realized that what they have put forth is being treated as being specific recommendations. However, I will leave that aside, for they did touch on three areas which are of some concern to me, which is why I am unable to give a full backing to the document, as much as I am in favour of the moral teaching, the critique and analysis of where we are as an inspiration for what we ought to be doing to repair the damage done to human beings.
The first area that I mentioned is the way in which they recommended the new forms of taxes on investment income. The Bishops have mentioned this and even advocated it. I feel, as I am sure many Hon. Members of the House do, that the creation of permanent jobs, which is at the heart of the Bishops' message, depends on massive investments which should not be impeded by more taxation. I believe that it is the taxation system of the country which has acted as an impediment to facilitating more and more investment which is at the heart of the creation of long-range, permanent jobs. That is a great debatable point.
I recognize that my friends in the NDP may not be in total agreement with what I have just said. Perhaps that is the point, that when we come into the House of Commons we are prepared to debate these various questions. However, I have some nervousness that the Bishops, putting out gospel values as they do in their critique, move immediately into a situation in which they are recommending higher forms of investment income.
April 15, 1983

Similarly, the Bishops' statement decries megaprojects, saying that they are not in favour of megaprojects. By that they mean large-scale nuclear plants, pipelines and hydroelectric projects. They say these are undesirable economic strategies. I am not so sure about that. I think the case can be made that what the country needs most at the moment is a huge massive project. I am thinking in terms of the CPR transcontinental railway, the Seaway or gas pipelines in the north. Those structures have a tremendous ripple effect throughout our whole economy, not just in the very areas where they are being built, for we know that the pipelines which have been contemplated and have gone down the drain, so to speak, would have produced enormous numbers of jobs right here in the heartland of Canada, in the industrial plants of Ontario. Therefore, I am not so sure that megaprojects are not an answer to the question of permanent jobs.
Similarly, the Bishops scorn the conversion to high-tech industries. I think that we are moving into a whole new modern era in which high-tech industries will be extremely important, and that if Canada fails to move ahead in microelectronics and petrochemicals, we will forfeit trading gains to the fierce international competition which we face here in this country.
I do not want to be too critical of the Bishops for putting out their ideas. However, I am a little bit nervous about the NDP taking those recommendations and making them their own or, vice versa, that we are confronted with a motion which urges the adoption of the specific recommendations of the Bishops. I have just cited three to which many Hon. Members of the House and I would be unable to give assent.
It is precisely because I want the Bishops' critique and their moral teaching to be heard, and I want it to be unfettered by argumentation over their specifics, that I wish the Bishops would continue to put out their teaching and their stand, but that they would do it in such a way that they challenge Hon. Members of the House from all sides to respond to the moral imperatives which the Bishops have a perfect right to be teaching. I rather think that if future statements of the Bishops followed the lead given by the "Constitution of the Chuch in the Modern World" and the encyclicals going back over the past 100 years, giving us pastoral teaching and allowing the specifics to be debated, determining, by a judgment of the political process, what is best at a given time in a given place, the universality and the timeless nature of the teachings of the church would then be enhanced and protected.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I personally welcome the statement from the Bishops. In my opinion it was right and proper for them to make a comment to us in the Government. I thought they had that right as citizens and I believe they have that mandate as a church.
My personal tradition is in an activist Protestant Christian belief. I am from the United Church and at one time I thought seriously about becoming a clergyman in that church. I was
Supply
drawn to the church, as I am to politics, by the opportunity to comment on my society and to work towards its improvement. I think that the same motives have clearly driven the Bishops in this instance. I suggest that it is the duty of the church to speak on the human condition. The Bishops have done so in this paper.
We clearly heard the statements from the Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) when I believe he quite properly quoted from documents setting out the fundamental ideas on social justice that have spurred the Bishops to go on and talk about our economy and our experiences in Canada.
Last week I personally met with one of the Bishops on a panel discussion, which turned out to be a debate although I did not see it as one. However, the audience saw it as so and their questions were posed as if it were a debate. The Bishop on that panel spoke about the moral values reflected in this statement. I talked about the specific steps followed by the Government in our recent activities. This led the chairman of the panel, Professor Gilles Paquette, to say that we had followed a classic behaviour in which the clergyman had taken the highroad and the politician had looked at the short run. I think he was right. I do not see those two avenues as contradictory paths to follow.
In fact, when I looked at the Bishops' statement I also recognized its two distinct parts. I heard the moral message in the beginning and, as I have just said, I appalauded it. I also saw the recipes, as Professor Paquette described them last week, behind their proposed cures. Today we have seen that those specific recipes arising from the concern are legitimate topics for debate and discussion. The recipes are areas where people differ. They in fact reflect different points of view, different experiences and different ideologies on the world.
As always, some people will suggest that the recipe writers should get their facts straight or be ready for an argument and debate once they have given their recipes. But that does not detract from the importance of making the statement in the first place. It also does not detract from the importance of the moral message contained in the earlier part of the Bishops' document.
Generally speaking, I have found that the Bishops and politicians have agreed in their moral concerns. Politicians are also here because of their social conscience. I have discovered from working 20 years as an activist and now in the last couple of years as a Member of Parliament that my colleagues from all Parties are spurred by the highest of motives. It is my judgment that this could not be reflected any better than it was recently in Toronto when the church got together with the Government through its NEED Program with $11 million to provide hundreds of jobs for needy people. We witnessed the church dedicate more than $4.5 million and be matched with funds from political sources, the Ontario and Canadian Governments. It was an example of everyone coming together to try to create an answer to a very pressing problem. I believe this is the common ground between Government action and the Bishops' concern as indicated in their statement. We have

April 15, 1983
Supply
a common concern and we saw in that example a social program that attempted to cure a demonstrable social ill.
As I have said, I believe that my colleagues in the NDP and the Conservative Party as well as my colleagues in the Liberal Party are in the overwhelming majority spurred on by the same imperative to improve our country and follow our own conscience in serving our fellow citizens.
During this recession we have seen the Government act out of these concerns. We have seen four practical steps followed which reflect the moral concern about the recession felt by Members on this side. First, I think we have indicated quite rightly that there are fundamental illnesses in our economy which must be cured. We could not act without addressing those basic facts and saying to the people, for example, that inflation has weakened our country. We could either provide some rubber patches to a leaky tire and attempt to restore the economy in a haphazard fashion, or we could address the very illness itself. I think it is imperative that we address the illness and cure it. That is what we have said should be the first step.
Second, we have said that we all must bear the burden during difficult times. We have not attempted to hide the fact that there are no magic answers during tough times. There is only hard work to get out of it. We have said that those who have the capacity should help get all of society out of trouble. We have been very clear on that issue.
Third, we have said that we will take the limited resources which we do have and direct them to the people who are most in need. While the vast majority will be asked to use their own resources, those who are most in trouble will receive help where they most need it.
Finally, we have said that it is acceptable, especially during tough times, to use the communities' resources and the Government's spending power to pull the whole country and specific people out of trouble.
I think that these four principles recognize that our country is part of the world and cannot exist in isolation no matter how hard we may want to try. It is not reasonable to try to isolate ourselves from events happening around the world.
We have seen this in my own riding in which there is a company called McDonnell Douglas. I am told that they have one of the most sophisticated machine shops for making aircraft in the world. They make the wings for DC-9s and DC-10s. During the past couple of years airlines have not been purchasing DC-9s or DC-10s and the only choice for the company was to stockpile the wings, which would not be reasonable, or to seek out new orders and aggressively rebuild. The company chose the latter course and DC-9s and DC-10s are being built again today. It would not have been reasonable for the company to fill warehouses full of DC-9 wings out of some misguided principle that we are an isolated autonomy.
Some of our hon. friends from British Columbia are in the House. They have seen the same impact on the lumber industry as a result of the decline in the American housing market. Our colleagues in Ontario and Quebec know the same impact
has hit the mining industry and they know of the experiences we have had in cities like Sudbury. We export and we trade abroad. We are open and subject to these forces that come in on us from the outside world. This is our greatest strength and it would be necessary for us to protect our trading openness, not to close it during times of economic difficulty. We do not want to close our borders. We do not want a magic solution that would tighten up our economy. We want to make sure that the whole world keeps trade as open as possible so that we can deal outward into that world for our own good.
I think the approach the Government is taking recognizes that our fundamental economic trouble can be solved by common effort. We can get our house in order and when the problems in the outside world are solved we will be ready to take advantage. That was the thrust of our six and five program.


Nelson Andrew Riis: And two million people out of work.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The whole point in the six and five program was that the Government could provide an example, but that Government action alone would not be enough. We would need other Governments at the provincial level, businesses, labour and co-operatives to join in with us-


Nelson Andrew Riis: And the old and the sick and the young.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -and they did. People across the country gave us support. That is why that effort has been a success. Just as we said to people that each person must try to make a contribution, in the same way we said that our economic woes could be solved to a great extent by pulling together. We did not leave the great majority of people abandoned. Instead we tried to provide a focus, a target, for some co-operative effort which the majority could undertake.
As I mentioned earlier, we did not walk away from the victims of the worst impact of the recession. We tried to zero in specific help for these people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: By reducing pensions.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is why this Government has never had an apology for short-term job creation. We have never apologized for that. In fact, we are proud of our record. People who have short-term difficulty need short-term help. We do not believe that is make-work. We believe that is legitimate economic assistance for people who need that help the most. I am proud of the record of short-term jobs for students in the summer time, a record reflected in the NEED Program-


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about full-time jobs?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -and a record that is reflected in the Canada Community Development Program. All of these efforts are reaching out in a short-term way and extending financial assistance, and are a worthwhile effort for people who need both for a short while.
April 15, 1983

We can find other examples. We reached out to home owners in trouble through the mortgage renewal plan. We reached out to businesses in the worst circumstances-


Nelson Andrew Riis: How?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -through the Small Business Development Bond.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is not available.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: And we reached out to big businesses like Chrysler and Massey-Ferguson because their impact was so significant for the whole economy. We have no apologies for helping big or small business when the whole country prospers as a result. Not only do the workers prosper but so do small businesses, other businesses, individual operators and communities who rely on these large operations as well as small ones. We reached out to the farmers last June through the $400 million addition that we put into the Farm Credit Corporation.
We have seen this Government reach out to those most in need while we asked others to try to use their own resources to make do. This has been the area of the greatest dispute. Has the Government been able to do enough? Should the Government do more? Has the Government been spending too much? Should the Government spend less? These are the questions where the heart of the political debate on the recession has taken place. I welcome suggestions that would make us a more effective administrator of all of these programs.
Finally, as we have seen in this House, the Government has used communities' resources to stimulate the economy when no one else was prepared to do that. I am speaking about our spending. Can you imagine the situation, Mr. Speaker, if we had followed the advice from some quarters and cut back our spending?


Nelson Andrew Riis: What quarters?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What quarters, our friend asks. I will keep the debate non-partisan.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I think if we had instead not increased our deficit, if we had not continued our spending and if we had not been concerned about our social programs, our economy would have been even flatter had we followed the advice of those who said our deficit was too high. Instead we used the deficit. The deficit, or Government spending, is a synonym for community resources and for Canada's resources. We used Canada's resources as a way to cushion those people about whom we have just spoken and who are most in need. We used those resources to spread out the hard times through time, to borrow against the time when the recovery comes and prosperity is returned. We borrowed from those more prosperous future times in order to give ourselves a bit of leeway and provide a bit of stimulus to our economy today.
Supply
Those are the actions the Government has taken in response to some pretty tough economic times. I think they arise out of the same sense of moral concern reflected in the early part of the Bishops' statement. I think we should welcome those statements. We need more of them, not only from the Bishops who have given us a moral imperative, but we also need lots of this kind of feedback from business people who can give us a very practical kind of recipe for our behaviour. We need to hear constantly and regularly from labour and co-operatives who can tell us very often, in as sophisticated a way as we can invent for ourselves, what we need to do to repair our economy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: But will you listen?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I welcome these statements from the Bishops, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Bishops in turn will take the time to study what the Government has done. They will see that our focus has been, as they urge the creation of jobs and the opportunities for individuals, that we have tried to share our national wealth so as to create a safety net for those most in need. They will see if they look at what we have done over the past few years that we have tried to get to the basic motivators in our economy, to business and the private sector, and to give that part of our economy as much of a boost as we can.
Finally, they will see that we have tried constantly to bring our economy into our own hands and control so that it will indeed be our own national Canadian economy. Those are courses the Bishops urge us to follow. I think we have done much of that very, very proudly in very difficult times.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members rising to ask questions?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Hon. Member. I regret having to do it. He said that he was proud of the record in very difficult times. Is he telling the House that he is proud of the unemployment record in the country? Is he telling the country by his statement in the House today that he is proud of the fact that, notwithstanding the Government's efforts, there are still so many people unemployed and there is still such misery? Is he telling the House he is proud of the fact that a young person from my constituency who came to see me today said that she wanted her Member of Parliament to meet the most highly educated welfare recipient in the City of Nepean? Is he proud of that kind of situation? I would think the Hon. Member would regret saying that the Government has done its best. The Government has failed. Is that not a more honest face to put on the situation today?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, our good friend from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said at the beginning of his statement he regretted having to ask the question. After hearing his question, I can understand why. Of course not. I do not think there is a politician alive who would undertake any action which would deliberately lead to the kinds of conditions the Hon. Member has described.

April 15, 1983
Supply
Indeed, it has been the motive on this side of the House to attack those conditions in two ways, as I tried to point out in my comments: first, to create jobs, long-term or short-term, but to create jobs needed to satisfy those conditions; second, when that has not been possible, to provide to people through the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the NEED Program, the Canada Assistance Program and all the other efforts which we undertake some short-term financial relief, in the form of social payments for which people have the right, and job opportunities in the form of short-term efforts such as Summer Canada for students, the NEED Program for people whose Unemployment Insurance benefits have ended, or community development projects for targeted groups. I do not think our record is one to back away from. Those have been our efforts to provide support for people in greatest need and to provide cures immediately and in the long term. Equally, we are spurred into that because of our dislike of and horror at the circumstances of people who are unemployed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment, as I may under the rules. The Member has really asked a question. I asked him whether or not he was proud of the results of the efforts and his answer was no. However, he said that he was proud of the efforts of the Government. I am not suggesting at all that the Government has made no effort. I am saying that the efforts have apparently been inadequate. I join with the Member in waiting until next Tuesday evening to see the adequacy of the measures brought forward by the Government in power to meet the very problems which he has outlined so eloquently. I believe there is a great responsibility on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to deal with those problems next week. I just wanted to ensure my hon. friend understood the thrust of my remarks.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, about three-quarters of the way through my speech I said that the practical details of any Government program will be the ones that provoke debate. We have just seen an example of that. Again I underline that I am pleased to see that 50 years of effort to build up a safety net by all kinds of Government, Tory and Liberal, has in fact provided at least a very high floor for people to rely on.
It is not a satisfactory position to be collecting Unemployment Insurance or to be receiving social assistance payments, but equally those are payments and support to which people are entitled. It is their right as Canadians to know that bad economic times will not destroy them personally. They are entitled to that. I am only saying now that I am proud of our record as a Government in creating a safety net for those unemployed people to whom the Hon. Member referred.
I am equally proud of our short-term job creation record and of our efforts to cure the long-term problem. Those cures are not there yet, I agree. The recovery is still coming, I agree. But at the same time the Government has provided some leadership and has tried to provide those cures.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of short questions for the Hon. Member. He outlined a variety of reasons for being proud of the efforts of the Government to reduce the unemployment rate. If one looks at the record, month after month one finds that the figures keep rising and there are more and more unemployed. We are now up to the officially adjusted limit of 1.6 million and climbing. There will be 900,000 young people coming on to the job market in the next ten weeks, seeking work in a very competitive environment. Those figures will rise even higher.
Other countries have virtually declared states of emergency because their figures have increased to around the 3 per cent range. They considered it a calamity or an emergency requiring extraordinary measures, not little job creation programs. Why has his Government not taken the same position when our figures are four times higher than the figures of these countries?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Which country is less than 3 per cent?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Japan, for example, with 2.7 per cent. They declared virtually a state of emergency. Why did not Canada?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I believe the efforts undertaken by the Government indicate very clearly that we consider it an emergency and that in fact we have tried to cure the problem of these people. The Hon. Member keeps referring to little work programs and so on. I am sorry to say that I object to that. I believe that when unemployment around the world is at the 35 million figure, when our economy, which is an open trading economy, is limited by the weakness of our trading partners, and when our own internal economic forces are on the mend, then we take short-term measures to help people through the worst of the trouble. I do not object to that process. In fact, it seems better to offer people worth-while program such as NEED jobs, as the Catholic church in Toronto and the Government of Canada together have done. That is better than just giving people income because they can be proud of the efforts they contributed to society in the short term. I do not think there is anything wrong with short-term jobs. When people need help, they will take it one day at a time. They will not, as the Hon. Member does, call it shortterm, little programs and so on.


John William Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question concerning the pride of the Hon. Member in job creation. Could he explain how many jobs the National Energy Program created for Canadians and how many jobs were created by the acquisition by Petro-Canada of BP and Petrofina?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not have specific figures to give the Hon. Member. At the same time let me indicate that I would not think either the National Energy Program or those two acquisitions weakened our economy, unlike the dogmatic response we always get from that Hon. Member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, do I have time to ask a question?
April 15, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period provided for questions is within half a minute of expiring. The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) is seeking the floor to ask a supplementary question.


John William Thomson: I want to ask just a quick supplementary question. I did not ask in my question for the precise number of jobs created. I just thought the Hon. Member might have the courtesy to say that unfortunately the National Energy Program deprived 27,000 Canadians of jobs, which is the truth.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Where did you get that figure?


John William Thomson: It is published information from the Independent Petroleum Association. It was independently arrived at. Surely to goodness the Hon. Member cannot stand in the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the period of questions has expired. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on debate.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do I not have a chance to reply to that diatribe?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway for the purpose of making a speech.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have enjoyed this debate today. I hesitate to say this because I will restrict some speakers, but I especially enjoyed the comments of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Maltais), the Liberal Member who last spoke, as well as those of Members on this side of the House, especially the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) and the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) who I understand wrote a book with Bishop De Roo. I think they all made very good contributions. It was clear to me, as it was probably clear to people watching this debate, that the Government feels very uneasy with this resolution and with the statement of the Bishops.
When we look at their statement, the Bishops are really saying that Liberalism can no longer deliver for the Canadian people. I can understand how the Government would be upset about that. We must find a whole new system both of distributing wealth in the country and occupying idle hands, the great tragedy at present in Canada.
That is what the Bishops said. It is what the Bishops were really talking about. It is the same message that we as Members of Parliament are getting from this country. I see the kind, scholarly and professorial Minister who tells me that there are no answers and that no consistent industrial strategy is possible.
I agreed to a certain extent. It is like when George Bernard Shaw said the golden rule is that there are no golden rules. Maybe there are no final answers. However, you can give
Supply
people hope. There is the possibility of getting on the new wave and giving the country some direction. That is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must go, and go soon. He is not prepared, nor is his Government, to give the country any solid direction. The country understands that and feels that way. We all get that message in our ridings.
The Government tell us to wait, the recovery is on the way, it is just around the corner. I ask the Government where that recovery is because there is no recovery in the life of this country. Maybe those playing the stock market, the bankers and the statisticians will barely notice it, but there is no recovery for the average man and woman in this country. I have just completed a tour of southern Ontario, the industrial heartland of this country. I asked the people whether the recovery was there. I kept getting the same answer: No, the recovery is not here. We have to pause and examine it.
What is the reaction of the Government to the Bishops? In one of my questions I stated that the Bishops' statement was inevitable. When you squeeze people out of work, including 25 per cent of our young people, you get some response. The Bishops' report is just the first response that this Government will get.
The first response of the Government was that the Bishops' report was tinged with Marxism. I believe that is what the Member said. You do not need to be a Marxist to have doubts about profits. Listen to this:
Manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages and raising the price and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing about the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own games. They complain only of those of other people.
A Bishop? No. As a matter of fact, it was Adam Smith, the father of capitalist economics, who said that. You can be critical of a system and not necessarily be a Marxist. If the Government had any sense, it would understand that.
The second reaction from Government Members as reflected in one of their speeches was to tell the Bishops in essence to butt out, to leave politics to us and stick to religion. I sincerely hope, trust and believe the Bishops have had a lot more success with their religion than this Government has had with reference to its political economics.
The Bishops have struck a responsive chord in this country. They have told us that the Government is out of touch. The Minister spoke about not having a consistent industrial strategy. That is for sure. The Government has zigged and zagged all over the place. It told us it had an industrial strategy. It did not say it was a shifting one but a solid one, a job spin-off from megaprojects. That was the industrial strategy. When the megaprojects failed, the industrial strategy failed and there has been nothing to replace it.
Even future Liberal leaders are not giving us any hope. I refer to John Turner and Donald Macdonald. When John Turner left this Government, he quickly aligned himself with

April 15, 1983
Supply
the people who control our economy. He is or was on the board of the Canadian Fund, the Canadian Investment Fund, Canadian Pacific, Credit Foncier, MacMillan Bloedel, Marathon Realties, Bechtel and so on. What is he offering the country? It seems there is nothing there in the new Liberalism.
Donald Macdonald, who is or was on the board of McDonnell Douglas, Shell and Dupont, is getting $800 a day to bribe the economy. The people in Vancouver-Kingsway are damn mad about that. They see this big shot getting all this money while they have to suffer and bear the burden of unemployment-and there is a lot of unemployment in British Columbia, especially in the forest industry.
What are we getting from the Government? We are not getting any policy. We do not seem to have any true direction. We are asked to wait and see and hope that we will get out of the recession. It is the Tinker Bell mentality. Like Tinker Bell, if you wish hard enough, you will fly and you can then fly out of the recession.
The Bishops raised another point that I want to touch upon, and that is distribution of income. The Economic Council of Canada said the gap between the most and least affluent is growing. Between 1970 and 1977 the wealthiest Canadians saw their wealth increase by 3.5 per cent and their debts go down by 6 per cent. The neediest, on the other hand, saw their wealth shrink by 13 per cent and their debt jump by 32 per cent. The combination of high interest rates and high unemployment that has marked the 1980s threatens to accentuate that disparity. In other words, the situation will get worse. There will be a further distribution of income. That is what the Bishops were talking about.
Other people in response to the Bishops, notably Canada's most powerful lobby, the Business Council on National Interest, simply avoided the fact that the Bishops pointed out that 20 per cent of Canadians are getting 42.5 per cent of the income. The Business Council and the Conservative Party have taken a rather simple world view, and it is this. They see the world as still a simple place where inflation is the main cause of unemployment. To cure the recession, inflation must fall. Then interest rates will follow and people will spend and business will invest. Growth will return and jobs will be created. In a nutshell, that is basically the Conservative policy.
It would be nice to have a world so easily manipulated, but there are real concerns that we are losing jobs that will never return. The Bishops spoke about the rapid movement of capital from one country to another. They said, and I quote:
-the tendency to treat people as an impersonal force having little or no significance beyond their economic purpose in the system.
You may not want to accept what the Bishops say, Mr. Speaker, but it is clear that the Bishops are right on. Canada's economy is in a crisis. You see evidence of that crisis when you talk to people across this country.
I want to talk a bit about my trip to the industrial heartland of Ontario. I think it focuses some of the issues. I want to predict what we will see in the future as a result of some of the
things I have learned. I met with a group of unemployed workers in Welland. With a little help from the union but not much help from anybody else, they formed their own group. This was the first of seven of those groups that I met. It was, if you like, organically formed. I want to tell what they said to me, and I will use their words. They said: "Mr. Waddell, at first we felt being unemployed was like a cancer. You do not want to say that you have the cancer. You do not want to say that you are a bum. We are not bums. We are well educated." I met people in unemployment groups who had finished high school, gone to community college and been retrained. I actually met a fellow who had been retrained twice.
When I attended university in the early sixties, I had Professor Marshall McLuhan, a notable professor. I remember him telling the class that people will have to be retrained three, four, five or six times in their life. I never believed that, but I saw it with my own eyes in Welland and St. Catharines. Can you believe that in modern Canada I saw a soup kitchen in a church in Welland? I met with the Welland Council and the Thorold Council and the Hamilton Council, the St. Catharines group, the Niagara group, the Windsor group, and I will tell you what they told me about the Government's economic program. They told me these NEED Programs do not work, that they are temporary programs, that they make no sense. In Windsor they were counting dogs: that was one of the programs. In another case they were cleaning brush in St. Catharines. They said that there are jobs to be done, there are bridges to be built, there are sewers to construct, there are traffic lights to be fixed, and so on. Forget this bureaucracy and give the money to the municipalities to hire contractors and pay decent wages to create proper jobs.
NEED has created 60,000 jobs. We are going to have a million people go off the Unemployment Insurance rolls in the next year. With 13 or 14 per cent unemployment I have my doubts whether our UIC and welfare systems can survive in the next year. It is that much of a crisis in the country.
I met with the municipal Councils of Welland and Thorold and I asked their civil servants and staff if they could provide me a list of the industries in their area. They provided a list of all the little manufacturing plants. I found that they all had dropped about 20 to 25 per cent in the last year, that many of them are foreign owned and the money is being drained out of the country. I will give an example of a company in Thorold, Ontario Paper, that had closed down and was re-tooling. When they finished re-tooling, getting into high-tech, they did not bring back their full shift, so people were laid off. Consistently in every company as you go through the list there is a 20 to 25 per cent reduction.
I met with some fruit growers there, a small business. They said: "We are no longer canning things here; we used to can fruits, ands so on, but we no longer do that". I had breakfast in the Holiday Inn and I had some apricot jam as I looked out at
April 15, 1983

the apricot trees. The jam I had was canned in Salinas, California, and it was labelled in Spanish and Japanese. Industries are moving rapidly out of Canada. We have a crisis here.
I met with the Unemployed Action Alliance in Niagara Falls, and I predict that we are going to see a much more militant group. I will tell you how bad it is. I met with a minister in Windsor and he said that the teacher told his eldest son: "It's too bad, boy, that you were born when you were born". And the boy came home and said to his father: "My young brother, was he born at a better time?" I mean, that is a real tragedy. We have youths sitting at home because they cannot get a job. They cannot get Unemployment Insurance. They cannot get welfare. They are at the charity of their families. You know what it is like if you have a post-teenager, early twenties, sitting around home. He or she should not be sitting around home but should be out on their own.
I kept running into all those difficulties. I cannot go into the full details but maybe I can summarize a little. The Mayor's committee on unemployment in Hamilton has good people, Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, people of all stripes trying to face this thing. They are telling us that we have got to have co-operation, and I agree with some of the Members who said that. When I met with the Mayor's committee, we had delegations there. Again they told me there is no economic upturn. They told me they were losing jobs. They asked about "Buy Canadian" policies, and what can we do about that. They asked about dumping of foreign goods and so on, and that is only natural.
They talked about some other things, too. They talked about a shorter work week. We have got to face that. We faced it before when we went from a 60-hour week to a 40-hour week. We have to face it in terms of perhaps getting more money to the people if they are only going to work three days a week. They talked about early retirement and maybe we have to go into that in a much bigger way. After all, there are some people that have their houses paid for while there are young families who have a house and a mortgage and the breadwinner is unemployed.
Let me tell the Liberal Government that this is not just the bottom of society, what Marx would call the lumpen-proletariat; this is the middle class now that is unemployed. This is going to have serious political repercussions for the Government.
We talked about retraining. We have to look at our retraining system again. We have to look at our Government sourcing systems again. In short, we have a national work crisis in Canada. It is there and we have to deal with it. It is hurting labour.
In Windsor, after the settlement with the auto workers, Chrysler has literally been taking all the jobs out of Windsor and sending them back to the United States. They are going to devastate Windsor. They are taking away all the parts jobs and now all we do is construct cars in Canada. We have to face that.
We have to face technological change. It is going to affect women in the workplace, women in offices. We are going to have the new technological office. Instead of hiring another
Supply
secretary, my former law partners are probably going to have a machine when they expand. What are we going to do with these people? This is the kind of thing that the Catholic Bishops were getting at.
The Catholic Bishops talked about a different society and perhaps I can conclude by saying something about that. I want to refer to some remarks the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) made, and I am speaking for myself here. I do not believe in big Government either. I think unions have their role in Government but we do not have to be totally subservient to the big unions either. We need economic democracy in this country. We need to focus, I might say with respect to the Hon. Member for Edmonton South, not on the megaprojects. We have $1 billion spent on northeast coal in British Columbia. It is costing about $1 million per job. We should be looking at a community model, at a local model which people can relate to. The Hon. Member can understand that.
For example, co-ops can be producing food locally. There are local energy producers; there are all kinds of things we have not thought of. We should be looking at the "small is beautiful" philosophy. We should be trying to give people power. Crown corporations are the reason I raised the question today in the House of Commons about the Challenger matter.
I started my political career by challenging B.C. Hydro in Vancouver to try to give people some power in running that vast corporation. We should be speaking about decentralizing the Government, not centralist economic issues. We should be getting into health issues. We should be dealing with co-ops and housing. We can do much more in housing. There is a position for unions. Unions should co-operate with Government and with business. These are all the things that we are saying.
What the Bishops are getting at, as I said, is that Liberalism in the sense of large Ottawa Liberalism-I do not use that for the riding or the area, I use it in terms of the kind of zigzagging economic planning that we have had-is dead. It is finished. Whether you are on the right or whether you are on the left, as I am, you have to look at a whole new society.
Let me conclude by saying that what the Bishops said is really not new. Canadian poets and writers have said it. F. R. Scott is a good example. We as a Party in the NDP have said this for years. Frank Scott wrote a poem entitled "Laurentide". He said that Canada is a large country, silent, awaiting the struggle. Well, the struggle has come. The new era in economics has come and if we do not grasp it with an industrial strategy, then we are going to have a permanent unemployment rate of 15 or 20 per cent. As the bishops have said that will be a human tragedy.
In conclusion, last December the Bishops called high unemployment in a country of Canada's wealth immoral. We in the NDP agree with that. That is why we brought this resolution forward. What the Bishops have said and what I think we should be thinking of putting into practice is that a right to labour and to economic well-being is just as much a

April 15, 1983
Supply
right as the right to freedom in our Constitution and in our great Charter of Rights-the right to personal, civil, political and legal freedoms. We should also be talking about economic rights.
I want to end my speech on that note and urge Members and the public to look at what the Bishops have said to us as Canadians.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member. In the final section of his speech, I think he was really getting down to the issue of how to repair damage that has been done. Let us agree that the Bishops are quite right to deplore the immorality of unemployment. But the Hon. Member is advancing the "small is beautiful" thesis as the answer to this immorality.
I want to ask him if he will consider and then agree with me that the world today needs such a tremendous amount of production to meet human need all over the world, such as housing, water, food production, that Canada has a role to play in increasing our productive capacity through megasystems, high-tech and all the modern industrial processes. Indeed, we have an opportunity to increase productive capacity, to increase the size of the economic pie, if you will, and then to apply more fairly the system of distributive justice. But without a huge increase in the world economic pie, there is not going to be the opportunity to put in distributive justice. There is the argument.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would caution the Hon. Member not to get carried away, with respect, by the notion of high-tech. He could sound like an Atari Liberal. The present Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) sometimes gets carried away with that. We have a lot of high-tech. Our auto industry is a pretty high-tech industry. I am not sure how we are going to face high-tech. We are facing robotics already. Certainly we should have high-tech. But it is not the full answer. It only employs a small group of people.
A study was done by the Canadian Labour Congress recently of one of the first high-tech communities near the Boston area. It used to be a traditional community and salaries were pretty close together. After the high-tech boom had begun there were a few people who made a lot of money and a heck of a lot of people in the service industries making not as much. And it was not the same community working together with these very different wage levels. So I do not believe that high-tech is the main answer.
I do not believe that megaprojects are the main answer, either. There is an industrial strategy which we put forward based on trying to manufacture some of the raw materials we send out of Canada, working with our strengths-for example, our forestry and mining industry. That is obviously an answer, but it is not the complete answer. I was trying to open up an economic position which would fall in with the Bishops' statement because, to me, their statement really focuses on people. What will make people feel good living in the 1980s and 1990s in Canada? It has to do with some sort of work, but
it has to be creative work, and they must have control over their lives in much more of a way than they have now.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not know for certain if I would have the opportunity to speak in this debate this afternoon but I am pleased to do so for a number of reasons, one of which is that one of the authors of the Bishops' statement happens to be my Bishop and I had the opportunity to meet with him for a very meaningful discussion on this subject.
One of the first points His Excellency made is, where did the idea come from in the first place to issue this kind of statement? He said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has asked in these difficult times for more dialogue from all quarters, because from dialogue comes understanding and the opportunity for debate on the way one may proceed in these complicated times. These have been adverse times for many Canadians, but not all. I believe we must keep our perspective on that because, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all recognize that there are many of us in this country who enjoy a lifestyle that would be the envy of anyone in any other country in the world. However, for some, and for far too many, these are difficult times.
The Bishops are saying, along with the Prime Minister and his Government, that there is now the opportunity not only to look at the short term and to ask how do we get out of current problems-which we all recognize are part of a worldwide dilemma-but how do we, in seeking solutions to the present miseries of the country and of the world, find fundamental changes which will affect the future?
In our conversation, His Excellency and I discussed first of all where some of the problems lie. We are in a very rapidly evolving society. Much has been said about the unemployment figures in Canada and they are deplorable at this point in time. We can explain why this is; it is because of worldwide conditions, lack of consumer confidence, and so on. We forget to remind ourselves that many more jobs have been produced, but at the same time our society has changed dramatically in the past few years. While we were producing more jobs, more people were going into the workplace, and this is part of the fundamental problem at the moment. In the past there was one member of a household earning a living. In that same family group now we have two, three and four members in the workplace. That is wonderful. I do not deny them their right to work, Mr. Speaker. It does mean, however, that these people are now in the work force where ten or 15 years ago they were not, and that produces another dilemma.
His Excellency and I also discussed the fact that we are living in an era where we must have a change of attitude in the business community. It must have a great social conscience. It must think not only in terms of profit, which is the fundamental reason for being in business, the theory being that the profits then serve the rest of society and create more jobs, but also goodwill should not be forgotten.
We also talked about the need for those of us who are earning salaries to be a little more understanding of current
April 15, 1983

situations. We have the NEED Program and job sharing programs in place, Mr. Speaker, which is part of the shortterm solution and part of the bridge to better economic times. They are working but, unfortunately, there are those in society who say: "Wait a minute; I want more money to go into this area to create more jobs. 1 do not want to share my job ten years from now." We have that kind of thinking to deal with.
I would like to sum up the afternoon's debate by saying it must make the Bishops, and all of us in the country, feel very good to know we can have this kind of dialogue and that it is successful, because the main point of the Bishops' statement was to place on the table for Canadians the opportunity to take a look through fresh eyes at the dilemma we find ourselves in
Supply
today in this country and around the world. Hopefully, through dialogue, understanding and above all goodwill and honest effort by all of us in society, we will find not only solutions but will set a trend which will carry us into the future with confidence and perhaps help us to evolve into a new society which will serve Canada well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 62, proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 18, 1983