1983-05-06

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, in the latest budget, rules governing the use of Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans were changed. Not long ago, I pointed out that Canadian taxpayers will now be able to make tax-free withdrawals of any amount currently in their RHOSPs, for the purchase of furniture and household appliances. Another change is that Canadians who buy newly constructed homes after the date of the budget and before December 31, 1984, will be able to claim an additional deduction of up to $10,000. This means that if the taxpayer has contributed $3,000 to a RHOSP in previous years, he or she will be able to claim an additional deduction of $7,000 for the purchase of a newly constructed home, within the dates mentioned. The proceeds of the RHOSP must, of course, be used for the purchase of a newly constructed home and associated furnishings. Individuals must complete a written offer to purchase the home before December 31, 1984, with the date of closing of the purchase and occupancy no later than February 28, 1985. Homes for which a purchase agreement was entered into prior to April 20, 1983 will be eligible for the measure if the offer to purchase was signed prior to that date, provided the date of closing was not before that date.
I think that with the recent news about the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan, this measure provides a very satisfactory alternative to that program, as a substitute for the $3,000 offered to buyers of new homes.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, for the past two years or more the East Coast fishing industry has been in the economic doldrums. This is an industry that is vital to more than 1,300 communities, over half of which depend
solely on fishing activities. It is the largest non-governmental employer in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, providing more jobs in absolute figures than does the automobile industry of Ontario.
In view of its importance to the nation, the Government established the Kirby Task Force to study the problems. Perhaps for the first time, fishermen, the unions, and processors realize that their adversaries are their competitors outside Canada. Americans are buying fresh cod delivered by air on a daily basis from Iceland, and Steinberg of Ottawa is selling frozen cod fish in one pound packages clearly marked as a product of the U.S.A. Obviously we are not only losing our foreign markets but our Canadian markets as well, and the key to our problem is quality.
New regulations call for all boats over 45 feet to carry ice, but this requirement has not been met. Bleeding and gutting as well as dockside grading are still local options. Fish holds should be upgraded to basic standards. Kirby also recommended additional ice-making facilities in coastal communities, but to date, this basic need has not been met.
Until we upgrade our quality, the improving fish markets of the world will be supplied by Iceland or Norway, or even by the United States. Therefore I urge the Minister and the Government to give a much higher priority to the basic needs of Canada's fishing industry.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, it has been more than a year since Econ Consulting Limited of Winnipeg went bankrupt, leaving more than 300 prairie farmers out of pocket some $4 million. At the time of the bankruptcy in April 1982, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) refused to take the Canadian Grain Commission to task for the way in which it allowed Econ's directors to escape annual audits. He refused a similar request when it came to him from the National Farmers' Union.
As the Minister knows, 77 farmers have now launched a suit against the Canadian Grain Commission over the Econ bankruptcy. They are seeking the reimbursement of at least some of the money they lost when the company went bankrupt. Just a few weeks ago the Canadian Grain Commission's lawyers sought a stay of action in this suit. The judge hearing this case in Winnipeg has not yet ruled on the motion.

May 6, 1983
The universe is unfolding as it usually does when farmers in this country are being trampled upon. Thanks to the Canadian Grain Commission's lawyers, the lawsuit is stalled in the courts and western farmers affected by the collapse of Econ Consulting have still not been compensated for their losses.
When the NFU wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to ask for a public inquiry into the bankruptcy, the Minister wrote back to them saying that his Department had hired a consulting accounting firm to make recommendations about the Canadian Grain Commission's procedures. Has that consulting firm handed down its report yet, or was this pricey firm hired as a smokescreen?
We in the New Democratic Party have not forgotten about the Econ bankruptcy. We are watching and waiting to see what the Minister does to ensure that this will not happen
again.


PAPAL VISIT TO CANADA
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, the ten-day visit of Pope John Paul II to Canada in September, 1984, will be an historic occasion, the first time that a Pope has come to this country where the Christian faith was planted so deeply more than 350 years ago.
It will not just be Catholics who will welcome Pope John Paul II. All Canadians of good will who recognize the Pope as a tireless promoter of peace and social justice throughout the world will rejoice to have him here.
When he spoke to the United Nations on October 2, 1979, Pope John Paul II said:
The Catholic Church in every place on earth proclaims a message of peace, prays for peace, educates for peace.
No issue before this Parliament, before any religious assembly, before the entire world, is more important today than securing peace through, first of all, ending the nuclear arms race. Canada must play a stronger role in the world community now searching for peace. Therefore I commend this vital theme of peace to the Pastoral Planning Committee organizing the Papal visit.
On behalf of the people of my own City of Edmonton, I also express the fervent wish that Pope John Paul include Edmonton in his cross-Canada itinerary.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in 1969 when the Government of Canada arrogated unto itself the exclusive monopoly on sales for freshwater fish in western and northern Canada, fishermen found that the Crown monopoly, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, was like a lobster trap. They were easily lured into it, but it was impossible to escape.
Despite subsidies from territorial and provincial Governments, the real return to fishermen has continued to decline since independent fish buyers were put out of business by the Government. What was once a thriving industry is now on the verge of collapse. The return to fishermen as a percentage of the final selling price is being reduced to a completely unacceptable level because of the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
Top quality Canadian whitefish, trout, and other species, should command premium prices on domestic and international markets, and fishermen should enjoy a high standard of living as a result of their labours. This will not happen until the fishery can be reorganized along free market principles and the stultifying bureaucratic monopoly of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation consigned to the garbage can of history.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, on April 18 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) rather curtly replied to my question. He endorsed the wasteful attitude of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to Government advertising on Crow rate changes. The Government's waste of taxpayers' dollars is even more blatant in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has made changes in that the material, which he told the people of Canada is out of date.
What do we have? We have a beautiful blue Tory and red Liberal flier, costing the taxpayers some $350,000. I question the morality of the Government advertising matters which have not become legislation, and the changes it is making in this area. I encourage Liberal backbenchers to rise up in moral indignation at the fact that we have moral pygmies in the front benches, like the Minister of Transport, making these kinds of blatant decisions concerning taxpayers' dollars. What will the Minister of Transport do now? Will he indulge in further advertising, further fliers across Canada to explain why he has made changes to his initial proposals? Will this cost Canadian taxpayers more money? As the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) mentioned on April 15, the Liberal
May 6, 1983

Party should reimburse the federal coffers or the taxpayers by paying-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the phrase "from sea to sea" will soon take on a new meaning for Kan-chan Stott of Ottawa. Kanchan starts her cross-Canada run from Victoria, British Columbia, today. When she reaches Halifax in October she will have established the longest distance ever run by a women. It is a run of epic proportions, but as well it is a feat which demonstrates the ever-growing contribution of women to sport and fitness in Canada. By this time next week, Kanchan anticipates she will have run 300 miles. We might keep that figure in mind as we contemplate what physical endeavours we should undertake for National Physical Activity Week.
Few Canadians are blessed with the requisite attributes and abilities of Kanchan to be champion marathoners, swimmers, or whatever. That is a fact of life for us to live with and should not deter anyone in the least from trying to improve their physical well being. No one has to earn a gold medal to become healthier or fitter; we just have to make physical activity a part of our daily routine.
Physical Activity Week is designed to encourage and challenge Canadians to put physical activity on their agenda. I hope Canadians take up that challenge and win their own personal awards.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The unemployment figures released today by Statistics Canada show there is no appreciable change in the unemployment rate. Indeed, they represent a net increase when you consider the fact that unemployment is supposed to be improving at this time of the year.
We note that the number of unemployed heads of families is up 31.7 per cent from a year ago, and has doubled in the past two years. The number of unemployed women is up 23.2 per cent from a year ago. The number of long-term unemployed
Oral Questions
youths is up 21.8 per cent from a year ago. We have fewer young people working in Canada today than ten years ago.
The unemployment rate today stands at 12.5 per cent. Is it the policy of the Government to gear its training programs, its employment programs and its job-incentive programs to double digit unemployment, or does the Govermment intend to bring in programs targeted to unemployed youth, and unemployed women, the first to be fired and the last to be re-hired in economic recovery?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the Hon. Member has tried to present the figures which came out this morning, in the darkest possible hue, when in fact these unemployment figures demonstrate that there is a substantial turnaround in the economy. If he would look at the figures in the proper perspective he would see that, since November, we have created over 135,000 new jobs. As far as the employment of women is concerned, in the last month alone 55,000 jobs were created for women in Canada, which is the highest level in the last five years.
What I believe Canadians are looking for now is a sign that things are beginning to turn around, and the signs to that effect are there now. What we must do as a Government, what we are trying to do, is build upon that recovery and not try to bring about the wailing and yelling which the Hon. Member is doing. Canadians do not want that doom and gloom. They want to see how we can take those signs of recovery, accelerate them as we did through the budget, and make the best of that new growth which is beginning to appear.


PROGRAMS TO MEET EVOLUTION OF MICRO-TECHNOLOGY
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, Canadians are looking for leadership and they are not getting it from the Government. That is the tragedy. Today we have more unemployed people in Canada than we had last January. That speaks in reply to the Minister's concept of economic recovery.
We lost 7,000 jobs last month in the manufacturing sector. We have today 624,000 young people unemployed, soon to be added to by another 300,000 who are coming from our universities and post-secondary schools. That is a million young people unemployed, with no jobs prospects. Yet the Minister continues to address this problem with-if I may turn the words back on him-the same old rhetoric, the same old training programs, refusing to recognize the reality of the new technology, the micro-chip society which will deny jobs to these people unless we have special training programs, and unless we have them now. What is the Minister doing about that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, again I think it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member has been in the critic's role on employment for so short a period of time. He has not spent that time very well learning what in fact is going on in our training

May 6, 1983
Oral Questions
programs. We brought in a new National Training Act a year ago, with the full endorsement of all Hon. Members of this House. Through that new Training Program we have applied over $1 billion in funds to training institutions across Canada, which is a 20 per cent increase over the year before. We have also designated a whole new series of national occupations designed to train Canadians in the new high-skill trades.
Up to this year we have spent over $70 million on modernizing training facilities, bringing in new centres for robotics and for computer training in every Province and region across Canada. Consequently we are now providing training for over 140,000 young people in those areas.
Those are the facts, Madam Speaker, which the Hon. Member constantly ignores and refuses to take into account. When he does that, he is simply again flying blindly, in the face of the facts and presents a picture of Canada that is not accurate or true.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PROGRAMS TO TRAIN LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it is the Minister who is playing fast and loose with the facts, because the facts are that between 1976-77 and today, real spending on employment manpower training dropped 13 per cent, from $553 million to $481 million. That was when we knew we were getting into the period of the new technology, when we knew that every job lost in the marketplace was a consequence of the new technology.
Today we have 931,000 Canadians classified as long-term unemployed. That means they have been unemployed for four months or more. We have 118,000 Canadians classified as discouraged workers; they have given up. Now we have a new group in Canadian society, the unemployables, because there are no job prospects for these one million long-term unemployable Canadians.
Does the Minister intend to recommend to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that we bring in programs which will target incentives to these long-term unemployables, the unemployed youth and unemployed women of the country? Unless we do that, these people are doomed to be the outcasts, the unemployables of our society as we enter into the microchip society. The Government itself predicts a rate of unemployment of 15 per cent by the end of the decade. These are the facts which the Minister refuses to recognize.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I suggest the first group of people who probably need retraining are the Hon. Member's researchers.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is the Minister's research.


Lloyd Axworthy: They simply do not know what is going on.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is all right in there.


Lloyd Axworthy: I suggest he go back and find out what in fact is taking place. The Minister of Finance allocated funds in the budget for a special program of youth employment which will provide direct subsidies to private sector employers to provide work experience and on-the-job-training for young people who are graduating from school, to give them that firsttime job experience. He also provided money to establish a network of job core programs right across Canada.
We have established a whole new network of special counselling units for young people and women so that they can get special assistance and support in getting back into the job market. Those are the kinds of initiatives that the Government is taking to deal with these problems and help people get back to work. We have a work-sharing program which is designed to ease the transition period for people laid off work. There are a number of programs my colleague, the Minister of Labour, has in order to assist in beginning to organize early retirement benefits.
The fact of the matter is that we recognize that change will take place. But rather than simply throwing our hands up in the air, as the Hon. Member is doing, and ranting at the heavens, we are trying to do something about managing that change.


Mr. Fennell:: Madam Speaker, I believe the problem we are discussing is much deeper than the Minister of Employment realizes.


FAILURE RATE IN TECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Economic Development and Science and Technology. I would like to state first of all that his paper presented on Monday is an excellent beginning. It is five years late, it is too little, but it is a start. For example, Northern Telecom has announced a new program called the Open World Program. It is going to spend $ 1.2 billion over the next five years and it anticipates revenue of $13 billion. Mitel spends 25 per cent of its gross sales on research and development.
There is a severe economic and social impact on youth unemployment. One out of four young people are unemployed.


Madam Speaker:: Order. When is the Hon. Member going to ask his question? Those preambles are not necessary for the question. The Hon. Member should go directly to the question.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, has the Minister allocated funds to expand computerized instruction systems which will overcome the failure rate the community colleges and universities are having with students and unemployed people entering into basic technology instruction programs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking a question which really comes under the responsibility of my ministry under the National Training Act. The simple answer to his question is yes, we have. We are doing it right across Canada. We have established a new system in which we are
May 6, 1983

working with business and labour to designate those occupations where there will be job demand, particularly in the high skill fields.
As I said to the Elon. Member for St. John's East, we are now working with private sector industry, labour unions, and the community colleges under the skills growth fund to invest in new machinery, equipment, and training programs right across Canada to provide that kind of training. I can say we are just in the midst of working with the high tech centres here in Ottawa. We have established a new CAD/CAM centre in the British Columbia Institute of Technology. We are working in the areas of new marine engineering in the offshore. We are working with the community college centres in Toronto. We have established new vocational centres on the prairies. Madam Speaker, the very things the Tories are now discovering need to be done, we are already doing.


ADAPTATION OF SOCIETY TO SHORTER WORK WEEKS
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I would address my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I realize that the Government is doing some of these things, but there is a deeper social problem which will occur over the next 20 years. He knows about it. There will be shorter work periods. What is the Minister doing toward adapting society to the extra leisure time? Pay TV is not adequate. What programs is he putting into place and what emphasis is being directed toward adapting society to the future changes, including increasingly high rates of unemployment?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think that is a very good question. I would first like to say that, as part of the budget debate, I tabled a paper on employment perspectives in the 1980s which took into account both changes in population and growth of the labour market, as well as the change in the occupational structure, and the technological change being discussed, and analysed the consequences. I then put forward a four point strategy involving training, adjustment of workers to deal with job dislocation, direct employment programs to help people in high unemployment areas, and matters relating to the structural problems in the labour market.
We tabled that document with the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration which plans to hold special hearings, at which I will appear, and we are inviting other representation. In the meantime we have introduced programs like work sharing, which is designed to help people use their time when the job market is in decline or recession in different industries in order to be retrained during that period of time. We also established the ILAP Program which, again, is designed to deal with worker dislocation.
We recognize the fact that those changes are going on, but what we must also recognize is that the way to deal with them is through participation by business, labour and Government,
Oral Questions
because no one single level of Government or one sector of the economy can manage it by itself. It must be done in partnership, and that is what we are trying to do.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question concerns the Crow change announcements of yesterday, and is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Transport refused to back off his controversial proposal to introduce variable freight rates on the Prairies, a policy which allows railways to dictate who receives service, through selective pricing.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's chief adviser on railway costs, Carl Snavely, has said that this would depopulate the Prairies? Why does his Government insist on a policy of running people off the land?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I suppose that is an example of a very loaded question. The Minister did not back off anything yesterday. He enjoined Hon. Members opposite to wait until they saw the Bill which would be given first reading next week. He did not discount any possibility. He just said that the question should be considered with an open mind, which the Minister has done in Cabinet.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON VARIABLE RATES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I would remind the House that at the Minister's press conference, he did say that he would be introducing a system of variable rates. The Prime Minister may remember that he, himself, gave a commitment on the same subject of variable rates, at a Liberal Party meeting in Regina on March 18, 1982. His comment then was: "If grain producers indicate to Professor Gilson that they do not want variable rates, then there will be no variable rates. It is as simple as that".
If it is that simple, can the Prime Minister tell the House why his Government has allowed the Minister of Transport to announce that he is proceeding with variable rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the record will show that grain producers said all kinds of contradictory things to Mr. Gilson and, indeed, to the Minister and to the various people who were trying to cull their opinions out there. The Hon. Member knows as well as I do that the various groups in the West are still quite divided on that matter.
What the Minister has done has been to propose a plan which will be announced in detail on the first reading of the Bill, probably early in the week. The Hon. Member will see then whether there are variable rates or not. He will see then-

May 6, 1983
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: The Minister said there would be.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -what type of variable rates there are and how they apply if, indeed, that will be the case.


ABSENCE OF CONSENSUS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I would like to ask a final supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister has just indicated that there is a wide diversity of opinion on some of the proposals to change the Crow rate. Does he not recall that a year and a half or two years ago he assured the House that there would be absolutely no change to Crow until there was consensus? Why is the Government continuing now, if there is no consensus?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member looks at the record he will see that I said that indeed there should be a consensus that there be a change in the Crow. I said that we would not touch the Crow unless there was a consensus that the Crow be touched and changed.
Except for a few Neanderthals, and they are all in the NDP, I think people in the West want a change to the Crow. That is recognized.
The debate is not whether it should be changed, it is what the change should be exactly. If the Party over there were honest, they would know very well that this is a very difficult and divisive subject. The people in the West are badly divided on it. They know that progress is needed. They know that the rail system must be improved if there are not to be bottlenecks within a few years. The way in which this will be done has been examined extensively by this Government.
We on this side have the courage to face our responsibility and say that we will make the change because a change is necessary, knowing full well that those people over there, the reactionaries in this land, would say, "Do not change anything; we are terrified."


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister as well. Would he tell the House today whether he and his Cabinet have given final approval to the recommendations contained in a Cabinet document which I hold in my hand, dated April 29, 1983, dealing with the Native Economic Development Fund. If so, does he believe that the $345 million of taxpayers' money contained in an announcement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in 1981 would be put to the most effective use if it were dispersed by the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Commerce instead of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
Does he also believe, in accordance with the recommendations of the Native Liberal Caucus, that the fund, "should under no circumstances be used for social development measures such as housing", and that "Members of the Liberal caucus feel that the board should consist of native people who are Liberals experienced in business and not representatives of the recognized native associations in the country"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that he is asking me a question that I will not and never have answered for two reasons. First, he is asking about the subject matter of a leaked Cabinet document. It is not my practice, nor will it be my practice, to answer those questions. Second, he is asking about the Liberal caucus.
There are ways of knowing what the Liberal caucus does. It is being a member of the Liberal caucus. I hope that will never happen to the Hon. Member.


Frank Oberle: This is one time when I share a certain hope with the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT DISCUSSIONS BE HELD'WITH NATIVE GROUPS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, never in my experience have I seen a more callous and blatantly partisan document exploiting the plight of a certain group in our society in such blatant political terms as this document.
The funds will not be spent in accordance with need. Quoting from the Cabinet document again, "Given the magnitude of the problem and the limited time and funds, some of the nature beneficiaries"-I suppose those would be Liberals- "may be those who need help least. Nevertheless, they will demonstrate to others that the jump to an urban entrepreneurial class can be made."
Will the Prime Minister undertake to discuss the Government's intention with regard to this $345 million, which, incidentally, comes from the Western Development Fund, with recognized native associations in the country, instead of giving a blank cheque to a select and elite group of Indian Liberal friends so that they can pay back the overdraft they already have with the banks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is quoting from a purported document which, for all I know, may be a complete fabrication by the Hon. Member-


Mr. Smith:: It probably is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and probably is. He holds up a piece of paper.
May 6, 1983

I will read the oath of the Members of the Privy Council to him. It says, "You will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Council."
I do not intend to break my oath just to suit the fanciful imagination of the Hon. Member.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, on reading this 49-page document, it becomes obvious that the $345 million of taxpayers' money will be used to bend native people to the will of this immoral and unscrupulous Government.
Does the Prime Minister feel that he and his colleagues can get away with a plan that promises to abuse the native people of this country even further, and to put money in the hands of the rich at the expense of the poor; a plan that could buy off Indian leaders and be used to buy constitutional positions-in short, a plan that proposes to set up one more Liberal pork barrel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that seems to be a repetition of the same question. Once again it is based on a document of which I know nothing. I know that when Cabinet makes decisions after very extensive discussions and looking at all sides of the question-and it is possible that there is input from various parts of the bureaucracy or ministry indicating different options-I am saying that when those decisions and policies are announced, I am then prepared to comment on them. I am not prepared to do so on the basis of some purportedly leaked document.


SELECTION OF CONSTITUENCIES FOR RECEIPT OF FUNDS
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, appended to this document, which is an official document as far as I am concerned, is a list "of federal electoral districts in which the population of Indian ancestry 18 years and over is significant in determining the outcome of a federal election." Is it the intention of the Liberal Government to use $345 million of Canadian taxpayers' money in these targeted ridings in an attempt to buy Indian votes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am very close to accusing the Hon. Member of fabricating evidence. If he wants to table a document that could be visible to everyone, he can then ask questions about the source and the authorship. Let him not drag in his own fabrications.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having read the
Oral Questions
Privy Councillors' oath to the House, could he tell us what the penalties are for breaking the oath?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a legal question that I am being asked. If the Hon. Member were interested in constitutional law he would probably discover that there is no statutory basis for the oath of the Privy Council. It is based on tradition.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I guess what the Prime Minister is telling us is that the sole jurisdiction and authority for determining whether the oath has been broken and what the penalties should be lie in his hands.


ISSUE OF BUDGET DOCUMENT BEING PHOTOGRAPHED
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, would the Prime Minister reconsider the photographs which played on the news in which the Minister of Finance was showing a Cabinet decision to the cameras and the Canadian people, and state whether or not he believes, given that he has read the oath of office, the deliberate showing of a Cabinet decision related to the budget is breaking the oath of office of the Privy Council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to introduce a Private Members' Bill giving a statutory basis to this oath of office, that is his privilege, of course. We will have a foundation in law and not in tradition as to what the oath says and how it should be respected.
If he is considering such a Bill, I suggest that he should also include the case of a budget being found in a garbage can.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question with regard to the over-all economic policies of the Government is directed to the Prime Minister. The unemployment statistics released today reveal that unemployment continues at 12.5 per cent. The Government's recent budget washed the Government's hands free of any direction for the over-all economy, and relied instead upon incentives to the private sector, at a time when we need a national strategy for economic development that will provide jobs for all. At the same time we know that one in every five young persons is unemployed although the same budget promised to meet the needs of young people. The dreams of young people have been shattered.
Does the Prime Minister really expect the people of this country to take seriously a budget which promised to meet the needs of young people, when one in every five young persons is unemployed?

May 6, 1983
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that Members of this Government give up on young people as quickly and easily as Members of the New Democratic Party have obviously done. We recognize that there are difficult economic circumstances for young people because, as the job market begins to pick up, they are further back in the line as employers begin to hire workers who have been laid off or are out of work. At the same time the budget did address their needs in a number of very significant ways, first, by the Special Recovery Projects which will provide a major stimulus right across Canada, and many beneficiaries of these initiatives will be young people themselves coming into the job market.
As well, special funds were set aside for new youth strategy programs which are designed to break that framework of structural problems which young people face, through hiring people in the Department of National Defence, through Katimavik, and through working with the private sector.
The point about the budget is that, rather than relying upon one single magic fix which the New Democratic Party always tries to latch upon, this is a balanced budget.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Say that again.


Lloyd Axworthy: It puts investments and commitments in a variety of areas, so that we work with the private sector, we work through direct employment programs, and we work by investing in human resource and training programs. That shows we have a proper balance rather than simply getting caught on extremes of the right or the left.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the budget was clearly a supply-side budget. The Minister makes reference to funds in the budget for youth. If you divide the 600,000 young people who are unemployed into the $280 million promised for youth, you get $405 per unemployed youth over two years. Can that be a serious commitment to youth unemployment?


SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. How can the Minister allocate in real dollar terms the same amount of money this summer as he did four years ago in 1979? Could he not take into account the fact that we are now in very different circumstances than we were four years ago, and will he not place a much higher priority on summer youth employment this year than he did four years ago?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the money being spent on summer youth employment this year is $170 million. That is up about 40 per cent over the expenditures we allocated in previous years. At the same time we have opened some 400 special youth employment offices across Canada to work with
the private sector to encourage not just big businesses but also people who work around their homes and in their small businesses to put job placements in those offices.
We recognize that as part of our approach to the problem we cannot do everything through Government. We can provide some leadership. We can help organize other sectors of the economy to try to tackle that youth problem. That is what we are trying to do. We are not trying to provide a monolithic one Government approach, but to work with all the other sectors of the economy, because we recognize it to be a national priority. Therefore we think that all Canadians should be working to get young people back on the job.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. A combination of weather, poor storage quality, and exceptionally low market prices has made the potato industry in New Brunswick almost a disaster area. Other potato producing areas of Canada have suffered to some degree and should also receive consideration. Would the Minister agree that of the $100 million additional money allocated to the Farm Credit Corporation, he should in fact allocate specific funds in the areas concerned with the potato industry, and allocate personnel for immediate consideration of applications to make bridge financing available to the potato producers of New Brunswick and other areas of Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I had a meeting with the Chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, and he told me he is doing that very thing which the Hon. Member has requested.


REQUEST THAT FARMERS BE PERMITTED TO DEFER LOAN REPAYMENTS
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, would the Minister also give consideration to the deferral of repayment of storable crop loans if that might make a difference to a farmer being able to plant a new crop?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, there are some payments in abeyance at the present time. I looked at this yesterday, I believe. We met growers two or three times. There are some who will not be in a position to repay. We know that, so it does not do us much good to try to put them into bankruptcy et cetera, to try to collect the money owed. We are asking them to do everything in their power to pay at least part of their loans. We do not know whether or not they will be able to do so. There are on-going discussions between ourselves and the group concerned at the present time which, Madam Speaker, is the New Brunswick Marketing Group.
May 6, 1983


PRICE STABILIZATION BOARD
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, I have a short supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. If the Price Stabilization Board is to appear on the scene this year, would it please speed up its decisionmaking process, announce what would be the price stabilization payment even if they do not make it immediately, so that this in turn would give confidence to lenders? Might I add one sentence, Madam Speaker? There has been some collection effort made historically on the storable crop loans. I hope the Minister will not do that this year.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I am probably the easiest person to get along with, especially when it comes to farmers who are producing high quality food or who are giving it away to society and are not getting compensated for it properly. The Hon. Member can rest assured that I will use every discretion within my power. I have a responsibility as a Minister to give these loans. We have to do everything possible to make sure that we can collect them, but we use every humanitarian judgment at the time we are doing it.
The Hon. Member talked about the Stabilization Board. I am sure he knows there are many people who are of the opinion that we should not be doing just what he is asking us to do. For instance, the producers in New Brunswick want a strong marketing board. The producers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, in fact in every province except Prince Edward Island, are the ones who are stopping it at the present time.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. It concerns a report prepared and released this week on scaffolding in pay-TV. The Minister will know that the report makes quite serious allegations that Canadian content rules and regulations may be being played a little bit away from the chest compared with what was intended. Would the Minister advise the House what he proposes to do as a result of that report?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the report, as I understand it, was released yesterday. It was the object of questioning between members of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and the Chairman of the CRTC. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that our very real interest in this whole question is clearly indicated by the fact that the report was indeed prepared in part with the help of funding from the Department of Communications. I will be examining the report. At that point I will have a clear idea of exactly what the report is recommending, and what action will be appropriate for me to take
Oral Questions
and what actions would be more appropriate for the CRTC to take.


REFERRAL OF DOCUMENTS TO COMMITTEE
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. It concerns broadcast strategy. The Minister probably does not know that his broadcast strategy tabled in the House is not one of the documents automatically referred to the Committee for study. Would the Minister consult with his House Leader to make sure that his Green and White Papers are referred to the Committee, given that the Committee is now discussing broadcast strategy?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his suggestion. I thought he would never ask.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my qustion is for the Minister of Economic Development. It is supplementary and it concerns unemployment, particularly as that affects young people. A couple of days ago the Science Council issued a report which stated that Canada is lagging far behind its competitors in the world in terms of funding for high technology industries. The Council mentions, for example, that the Minister has just announced the spending of $700 million over the next two years, while small European countries are spending billions of dollars on the development of high technology.
In view of the fact that some 21 per cent of our young people are unemployed, and in view of the fact they are very interested in advance technology, computers and micro-chips and so on, why are we so far behind our competitors in the world? Why do we not have more funding in terms of high technology development so there will be jobs for young people in the future in this country, as there will be in other countries around the world?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, later today we will be having a debate on this subject. I hope the quality of the debate will surpass some of the questions asked, particularly those asked by the Tories. But the question of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is a thoughtful one.
I have had a brief look at the report of the Science Council. We have moved out on the issue of microelectronics in a very aggressive way with five major programs. We intend to continue in that direction. The $700 million that is referred to by the Hon. Member is, of course, incremental spending in this budget. There has never been such a thrust in the past. I

May 6, 1983
Oral Questions
suspect that very few countries have ever in their budgets come through with that kind of effort. It is exclusive, I might say, of tax incentives which are provided for and which will in fact be discussed by virtue of the White Paper which the Minister of Finance tabled with the budget.
I assure the Hon. Member that we are very conscious of the importance of training young people in microelectronics, not only through the programs which were detailed a few minutes ago by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but also through our awareness program. We recognize that young Canadians in primary school and secondary school have to be aware of the opportunities that are being provided and will continue to be provided by these new technologies. That is part of the budget thrust. I would say that the effort is very substantial indeed. Perhaps we can take it up in more detail during the debate this afternoon.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the Government's Science Council says once again that, despite those programs, we are about four or five years behind some of the smaller European countries, let alone Japan. Last year in our country we had a net trade deficit of $8 billion in high technology, and by the year 1990 it will reach about $10 billion in computers alone. In light of that kind of information from the Government's own agency, can the Minister tell the House why he is not developing a policy to ensure that this viable industry will be Canadian owned? Otherwise, in the future the industry may indeed be very small, if it exists at all. We might instead be importing all of our high technology and equipment and, therefore, losing jobs for Canadians. What steps is the Government going to take to ensure that this industry will be Canadian owned and jobs will be created in this country for Canadian young people?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the Government has always encouraged Canadian Ownership of many sectors, including high or advanced technology, and will continue to do so. It is interesting that the major players in this field in Canada are in fact Canadian owned and are world class. When the Hon. Member says we are behind, perhaps we are, but we are ahead in many other areas.
I remind the Hon. Member that, notwithstanding the abysmal rate of productivity increase in this country, the latest numbers out of the OECD show that Canada is still the second most productive, that is gross domestic product per worker, after the United States. Therefore we have a good base. Let us not lose it. That is what this technology program is all about. That is what this technology policy is designed to do, the policy which I tabled and spoke on earlier this week. From the comments we have heard from the Hon. Member, I judge that
he will be very supportive of the thrust of the policy which we are putting forward.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I wish to pose a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to test the Minister on his statement that he is very easy to get along with. The Minister may recall that a few weeks ago I posed a question regarding dual labelling in metric and imperial of farm chemicals. He understands the problem. He has had representations from farm organizations. Has the Minister talked to his colleague who is responsible for metric, and has a decision been made to permit dual labelling of these farm chemicals?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am fully aware of the debate on the subject of whether there should be dual labelling. A lot of chemicals used in Canada are imported. Therefore they have the American system of measurement. According to our discussions, this may create even more confusion. The Province of Ontario is sending out a guide for farmers to use so that they will not mix ingredients improperly for their spraying operations. I do not know of any decision having been taken on dual labelling. My officials in Agriculture Canada who have studied this have strongly advised against it.


REQUEST THAT DISCUSSIONS BE HELD WITH FARM ORGANIZATIONS
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, over the years this Minister has told us, time and again, that he is concerned about the farmers of Canada. Many representations have been made to him regarding this problem. He knows the feelings of the farmers and their problems. It is interesting to note that Gilles Cyr, a farmer in Prescott, Ontario, has published a book, on metric measurement of farm chemicals. He has received inquiries and orders for his book from all across Canada. If the Minister has the interest of the farmers at heart, surely he will discuss the matter with the farm organizations and with his colleague who is responsible for metric, and at least allow dual labelling so that farmers can carry on their farming operations without the danger of making a mistake when applying chemicals.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is overemphasizing the situation and condition. I have met with many farm organizations and we have discussed this. I asked a number of these farm organizations whether they were concerned about it. Some have made no representations. They say their members have no concern, that they understand metric and are perfectly willing to use the metric system. Our statistics show there are not
May 6, 1983

more cases of misuse now than under the imperial system, when carrying out spraying operations.
The Hon. Member is trying to intimate that I do not care. I am as concerned as anyone. I am probably more concerned than he is. He is a great one at trying to make politics out of something and blowing it out of proportion, et cetera, for political gain. What he should be concerned about is the good of the agricultural industry and the fact that practically the whole world is using the metric system. There are only two small countries, Burundi and Nepal, I believe, that are not using the metric system. The Hon. Member would like to drag us back to the eighteenth century, or something like that.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. He said that he wants to release first-time, non-violent offenders on earlier parole. Will the Minister tell us whether he includes under non-violent offences such matters as break and enter, theft, trafficking in heroin, and some types of robberies? Will he tell us what he means by the use of the term non-violent?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, in the first place the responsibility for release is not mine but that of the National Parole Board. I discovered that in a lot of cases where the Parole Board was releasing individuals it was not looking at the case at the earliest opportunity that it could under the law to do so. I indicated that I would like to see material submitted earlier to the Board by the parole service, which is under the responsibility of the Correctional Service of Canada, so that in those individual cases where it was prepared to release the non-violent offender earlier, it should have the opportunity to have the hearing to do so.


David Kilgour: In other words, the Minister does not wish to reply to the question.


APPLICATION TO HEROIN TRAFFICKERS
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General whether he has ever met a victim of break-and-enter, a heroin addict, a victim of theft, a person who has been defrauded of their life's savings. Does the Minister include these matters as being violent or non-violent offences? Does the Minister think that a heroin trafficker should be let out at a sixth of his sentence?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the offences the Hon. Member has described are nonviolent offences. Those are cases which I have asked the Parole Board to look at at an earlier opportunity. Of course, in the individual circumstances, risk to society does not only include the risk of re-offending, which of course a break-and-enter
Point of Order-Mr. Greenaway
artist has to be judged on as well as a drug addict or drug trafficker, but also the serious risk of the system of justice being brought into disrepute by people whose punishment requires that they be incarcerated longer, and their being allowed out before they should be. I think the Parole Board has statutory authority to look at the risk of society, not only of re-offending, which, of course, is within its mandate to do, but of bringing the system of justice into disrepute by allowing people out ealier than the sense of justice of the community requires.


POINT OF ORDER
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent of the House to table this document that I myself and my colleague-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that Hon. Members are not allowed to table documents. I am sorry, is the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Nielsen:: Yes, Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The House can do anything with unanimous consent. May I suggest that the Chair simply request the unanimous consent of the House to enable the Member do that which he wishes to do? All we ask is that the Speaker put the question as to whether or not there is unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: I was simply warning the Hon. Member of the rule as it stands. I will quote to him the following passage from Beauchesne:
If a Minister cites or quotes an official document in debate, he should be prepared to table it. A Private Member has neither the right nor the obligation to table an official, or any other document.
However, the Hon. Member is quite right, although I do want to try to bring the House to observing the rules as they are written, and I am reminding Hon. Members of those rules. I was reminded by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) yesterday of the severity with which Question Period should be directed, and he referred to the supplementary questions which should obviously be related to the first question, but we have developed the habit of doing something quite different.


Mr. Lambert:: It is a bad habit.


Madam Speaker:: It is a bad habit, I agree with the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). It is a very bad habit. We will try to correct that habit. I was trying to correct this habit but obviously we must go through the procedure of asking the House if it does give its unanimous consent to the

May 6, 1983
Order Paper Questions
request of the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) on Thursday, May 5, 1983, meets the requirements of Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 4,671 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 4,671 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many new regulations or amendments to existing regulations were promulgated in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 by the Department of (i) Agriculture (ii) Communications (iii) Consumer and Corporate Affairs (iv) Energy, Mines and Resources (v) the Environment (vi) Fisheries and Oceans (vii) National Health and Welfare (viii) Indian Affairs and Northern Development (ix) Labour (x) Transport?
2.	(a) Under the Treasury Board Secretariat's Socio-Economic Impact Analysis Program, which proposed regulations were studied in (i) 1981 (ii) 1982 (b) what were the average and median lengths of time required to complete each analysis and what was the average cost involved?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


James Aloysius McGrath: That this House condemns the government for its failure to provide adequate and purposeful funding for Research and Development and specialized training, necessary to cope with technological change in the workplace which, according to a federal government study, will cause a serious displacement of jobs in manufacturing and business services, resulting in continuing high unemployment, forecast to reach fifteen (15) percent by 1991.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion we put down yesterday was in anticipation of the unemployment figures which were scheduled to be released today by Statistics Canada. If I can say this sarcastically, we were not disappointed because the figures released today indicated virtually no change in the unemployment rate month over month, and showed a substantial difference in the unemployment rate year over year. The unemployment rate today, according to Statistics Canada, is
12.5	per cent. That is up from 9.9 per cent seasonally adjusted for April of 1982. The fact is that there has been to change, seasonal adjustments notwithstanding. Given the fact that at this time of the year we would anticipate a sharp decline in unemployment, that means of course that there has been virtually a net increase in unemployment.
It is even more disturbing, Mr. Speaker, if you look behind the statistics. There is a danger of looking upon statistics merely as statistics and not in human terms. But if you look behind the figures, you will find some very alarming matters to which I will refer later in my speech. For example, there is a growth in the rate of long-term unemployment. There are a million people in Canada today who are classified as long-term unemployed. Next month there will be a million young people out of work. It is a very, very serious situation that we are faced with in this country today.
On Tuesday, May 3, 1983, the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) outlined four main objectives of the Government's new technological policy. These were: First, to strengthen the Canadian economy through the development of new technologies for producing goods and services and the widespread adoption of new and existing
May 6, 1983

technologies. Second, to manage the process of technological development so as to ensure that Canadians are aware of both the opportunities and the problems that might arise. Third, to ensure that the benefits to technological development are shared equitably among all Canadians in every region. Fourth to create a social climate that places a premium on scientific and technological excellence, curiosity, and innovation.
In layman's terms, we are seeing that the Government is finally coming to grips with reality, the reality being that it has not provided the kind of leadership that would speak to the need for the new forms of training and new kinds of social adjustment needed to cope with the new technology as we enter into the micro-chip society. Let me quote the following:
Canada faces the strong likelihood of sustained unemployment with the associated problems of alcoholism, crime, vandalism and family breakups. Young people will be particularly hard hit and the disparity between the rich and poor regions in Canada is likely to increase.
I did not say that. The Bishops said as much, but that is what one would expect the church to say. That is what one would expect the Canadian Council on Social Development to say. That statement came from a report commisioned by the Ministry of State for Economic Development, a report which was leaked to the Globe and Mail.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, is what this debate is all about, because if we fail to recognize the changes in our society as a result of the new high technology, very serious social problems will be created down the road. Indeed, because of the number of long-term unemployed in this country, I predict that we may be very close to such a situation. As we enter into the heat of the summer, the situation will heat up and we could very well have violence on the streets, although I pray to God that that will hot happen.
The Minister of State responsible for economic development tries to tell us that all is well, but in actual fact we see the Minister, who has a leadership role, and his colleagues closing their eyes to the reality of the situation by failing to face up to the facts contained not only in the study to which I just referred but in other studies by experts within and without the Government who have tried to warn the Government what to expect.
The sad fact is that Canada is not ready for this new age. Canada is not ready for this new industrial revolution, this new micro-chip society. As a sad consequence, we are told by the Government, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and by Government studies that we must condition ourselves to double-digit unemployment. Indeed double-digit unemployment is here to stay. The report to which I just referred, the one commissioned by the Ministry of State for Economic Development, talked about unemployment reaching 15 per cent by 1991.
What does this mean? It means that the Government is now gearing its policy to that fact because it has accepted it. It hopes that by the extension of double-digit unemployment month after month Canadians will become conditioned to it. The Government has doomed a large segment of the population to the stigma of being unemployable. We have heard
Supply
about the untouchables in other societies. We now have the unemployables in our society. These are people who are unemployable because they are the long-term unemployed, the chronically unemployed, the discouraged unemployed and the untrained unemployed. I cannot accept and refuse to accept that as a fact of Canadian life. I for one, and indeed the people of the country, expect the Government to provide some form of leadership to deal with that situation, with this new phenomenon of Canadian life.
I am sorry to say that we had evidence of lack of leadership today in the House. We see day after day that leadership is not forthcoming. Consequently, a large segment of our population is doomed to being unemployable. That is what The Globe and Mail carried in its story of the leaked document commissioned by the Ministry of State for Economic Development which dramatically underlined the problem.
All we have to do is to look at the unemployment statistics. Anyone who tries to draw any consolation or satisfaction from the unemployment statistics released today is whistling in the dark and failing to face up to reality. As I have indicated, the minute decline in the seasonally-adjusted rate means that there has been no change in the rate of unemployment. In fact, there has been a net increase in the rate of unemployment when it should be going down.
Let us take a look at the unemployment situation. Let us go behind the statistics because behind them is the potential for human tragedy. Behind every one of these statistics is a human being, a Canadian who faces the prospect of having no job. Unemployment for women is up by 23.2 per cent over April, 1982. In 1982 we were supposed to be in the depths of the recession, yet we see an increase today over 1982 of 23.2 per cent in unemployment among women. There are 609,000 women in the country who are unemployed today. That is unacceptable. Youth unemployment is up by 21.8 per cent from April, 1982. Today there are 624,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 without job prospects. They are soon to be joined by an army of young people coming from our universities and post-secondary institutions looking for jobs and having no job prospects. The lack of prospects of a million young people in our country causes me to be ashamed.
Let us take a look at the long-term unemployed because they represent the core of the unemployables. This is what speaks to the recommendations contained in the various reports tabled in the House. It was referred to by the Ministry of State for Economic Development and in the report released by the Science Council of Canada. Long-term unemployed is up by 62.5 per cent over April, 1982. These are people who have been unemployed 3.5 months or more. Today, 931,000 Canadians have been unemployed for 3.5 months or more. Most of them have seen their Unemployment Insurance benefits expire. All these facts are coming from the catalogue released by Statistics Canada today. If we add to that the 118,000-and that is in there-discouraged workers, those who have given up looking for jobs because the prospects are

May 6, 1983
Supply
not there, we have a million people who constitute the vast army of unemployables in Canada today. These are people who have given up because there are no job prospects. I know what I speak of because I come from an area where this is a well-known fact of life, where chronically high unemployment has been rampant for so long that large segments of the work force have given up looking for jobs because there are in fact no job prospects.
That is the situation in Canada today as we head into the era of the new industrial revolution, the micro-chip society. That is the situation which cries out for leadership. That is the situation the Government has failed to address, both in terms of its response in the House, as exemplified by the statements yesterday of Minister of State for Economic Development, and in terms of its response in the budget. That is the situation which we as a Party are trying to highlight in the House today in the debate on the motion before us. This is the product of years of shortsightedness and neglect by a Government which tends to hide its head in the sand when all danger signals are in front of it.
Let us take a look at the record. We heard from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) today, but let me first indicate that the emphasis must be on employment training as we head into the era of high technology. In the five-year period from 1976-77 to 1981-82, the federal Government's investment in employment training in constant dollars dropped every year except for the one year when there was a change in Government. That year it rose by 5 per cent; when this Party was in power, money for manpower training programs rose by 5 per cent. Between 1976-77 and 1982-83 real spending on employment training actually dropped by 13 per cent, whereas total Government spending rose in real terms during the same period of time. The first year when real employment training expenditures rose under the Liberal Government since 1976 was the year i982-8 j. Finally, there is a recognition that the Government has not put enough emphasis on the right kinds of training programs.
Let me now take a look at the Government's record in terms of research and development. We all know that it is an appalling record. We are paying for the lack of emphasis on research and development right now by the staggering rate of unemployment and by the prospects of double-digit unemployment well into the 1980s. That is the cost of the failure of the Government to give adequate or sufficient priority to research and development. Last year research and development expenditures in Canada accounted for 1.3 per cent of GNP, the same level as they were in 1976, the growth in the economy, the technological changes in the work force and the marketplace notwithstanding. The federal Government's share of the spending has dropped from 47 per cent in the period from 1963 to 1967 to 33 per cent this year. This means that the federal Government has transferred the burden of funding for research and development to the private sector and to educational institutions.
The leadership, which should be coming from the Govern-I ment of Canada, has been abdicated in the hope that it will be taken up by the private sector and by educational institutions.
As a consequence, surely our situation today should come as no surprise. We have failed to invest in those areas which we know from experience promote higher real growth, the rate of productivity and an enhanced competitive position in world markets. That is the consequence we are facing today. Without such investment, our recent job losses were and are inevitable. We lost 7,000 jobs in one month in the manufacturing sector. That is a situation which, I predict, will continue. By failing to invest adequately over the years in research and development we have failed to provide the seeds necessary to ensure a good harvest. The young people of this country, the women of this country, are the ones who are paying for that fact. Wayne Simpson, an economist at the University of Manitoba, stated in a study which was commissioned by the Economic Council of Canada that the challenge facing Canadian policymakers since the early 1970s has been defined as non-inflationary solutions to high unemployment and low productivity. He goes on to observe, and I quote:
Effective training to eliminate observed deficiencies of skilled labour may simultaneously raise productivity, reduce inflation and lower unemployment. In short, it can help to solve three major problems facing the Canadian economy today.
Of course, the same observations apply equally to research and development. The Government, Mr. Speaker, thus stands condemned for its failure to recognize that investment in these two areas represents our best hope of promoting non-inflationary economic growth and high levels of employment.
Who are the first to be fired and the last to be hired in a recession? The first to go are the women, the young people, the disadvantaged, the ethnic groups, the native people. They are the first to be fired in a recession. They are the last to be rehired in times of economic recovery. Unless something is done for these people, they will constitute the unemployable of our society as we head into the micro-chip society. Who provides the majority of the work in our service sector, in the offices across the country? Women. These jobs will disappear as a consequence of the new technology. These are the women for whom we have been striving to provide equality of opportunity in the workplace by affirmative action and other programs and who will be doomed to having no job prospects. There will be no work for them. They will not be able to help feed their families. If they happen to be the heads of families, they will be doomed to welfare.
That is the consequence of the failure of this Government to provide leadership, to listen to its own experts, to read the signs which are there as we head out of the recession into the micro-chip society. We now have a Government which has, as a part of its economic recovery, a recognition that double-digit unemployment is going to be here for the rest of the decade. In fact, according to its own projections, unemployment will rise to 15 per cent by 1991. That is a disgraceful fact and one that is not acceptable to the people of Canada. It is one which represents, in my view, a total abdication of leadership on the part of this Government.
May 6, 1983


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to engage in this debate and I thank my colleague from the Tory Party for bringing forward the matter of technological change to be debated today in this House. The choice of technological change, as a topic for debate in this House is right on target because today the unemployment statistics came out once again, and while, to be fair to the Government, the level of unemployment in terms of percentages is down marginally, the over-all picture with regard to unemployment in this country has remained the same. Unemployment is at the 12 per cent level, which is very high, and the budget recognized this and pointed it out. These are levels which are unacceptable to Canadians.
Technological change is going to continue to threaten the employment prospects of Canadians. Therefore, these two topics, unemployment and technological change, go hand in hand. Today's unemployment statistics show that among the youth in this country there are some 21.4 per cent unemployed. One in every five young people in this country is without a job. Not only are the heads of families, those who have to pay the mortgage, and pay for the groceries, suffering from the present state of our economy and the reluctance of Government to come to grips with the whole question of technological change, but the young people, who are the very future of this country, are suffering in a very deep way from the present economic crisis which exists in Canada.
A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) presented to the House his plan with regard to technological change. He spoke about incentives to the private sector. He spoke about a rosy future for Canada. He spoke about the prospects of Canadians moving from boring, tedious, difficult jobs into exciting and well paid jobs. While this can be part of the picture with regard to technological change, it is not the whole picture. We all become very vividly aware of the fact that the Minister had only presented one side of the picture the next morning when The Globe and Mail published a secret document with regard to technological change which the Minister had in his possession. It was a document which pointed out some of the challenges which are involved in the transition from our present economy to the new economy.
One of the stark realities which is involved in this transition is the fact of the possible loss of some two million jobs for the Canadian economy, and the fact that unless something serious is done about the situation we could be facing unemployment rates in this country of some 15 per cent by the year 1990. Therefore, while the budget which the Government recently introduced in the House accepted unemployment at 12 per cent for this year, 11 per cent for next year and 10 per cent for subsequent years, and in fact suggested that full employment in this country was going to mean unemployment at some 7 per cent or 8 per cent in the long term, this secret document, which the Government has yet failed to release, shows that we may face unemployment rates of up to 15 per cent if the Government does not take seriously the whole question of technological change.
The problem with the approach which the Government is taking to technological change and to the over-all economy is
Supply
that it has really decided to wash its hands of the responsibility of leadership in the economic area. It has decided to rely on the private sector. The budget document indicates over and over again that the jobs will have to come from the private sector. The problem with that is, Mr. Speaker, that if you leave the creation of jobs and growth of the economy to the private sector, and the private sector only, then you are leaving our future and the important decisions with regard to our future to the individual heads of individual business enterprises in this country.
This is a time when we need more than ever an over-all strategy for the direction of the economy of this country and a time when we need our public institutions to bring together business, investment communities, labour and the public sector in a common effort to devise a strategy for economic development, and a strategy for economic development which will have as its first priority the provisions of employment for all Canadians. Rather than putting in place an industrial strategy, a plan of economic development in this country, what the Government has done in its most recent budget, is to rely on incentives to the private sector. It took whatever financial elbow room it had and allocated those dollars to the private sector. At the same time it failed to set a direction for the Canadian economy. That is the first major failing of this Government in its efforts to deal with technological change.
Another thing I want to bring to the attention of this House, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that obviously when we move into a very different kind of economy, when technological change is going to have a comprehensive impact upon the kind of work taking place in the country, when even established industries are going to renew themselves and take a different form, it is crucial that we have an adequate training system. In other words, there is going to be so much change going on in the economy that in order for people to have work and adequate and secure incomes, they will need to have ready and easy access to adequate training. Yet what is the Government's record in this area? When it brought in the National Training Act, which has been touted and advertised across this country, it continued with the same old approach to training which had been in place for a number of years now. That consists of giving financial incentives to the private sector to train people. But that does not really put in place a training system such as exists in European countries, for example. What I am referring to is the fact that in this country our industry trains fewer of its workers than do comparable industries in European countries.
That is why when the debate was going on in the House with regard to training we suggested that the Government examine seriously the grant levy system of training. The notion behind this system is that we would take a particular part of the manufacturing industry, let us say, and we would levy a company in that industry a certain amount to be put in the pot for training. Then those companies which actually did the training could take something out of the pot. That system
25234

May 6, 1983
Supply
would encourage industry to train people. It is using both the carrot and the stick. If Canadians are to have access to jobs with higher skill levels, it is crucial that private industry be brought into the training business and that it be systematized, and not just rely upon cash grants and cash incentives.
Another area where the impact of technological change is very striking is that of the disadvantaged people, whether it be women, natives or the handicapped. I would like to focus on women for a moment because they make up a large part of service sector employees. That sector will be radically changed by new technology. The jobs women presently occupy, in which they are underpaid relative to men, are going to be deskilled or lost. So that if women are not to bear the burden of this transition from the old technology to the new, programs have to be put in place to guarantee that adequate training is made available to women to allow them to take advantage of newly created jobs so they can continue to earn an adequate living. Not only will there need to be training put in place, but adequate social support will be needed so that women with children can take the available training.
In this country, Mr. Speaker, there is a very large percentage of people who are functionally illiterate. At a time when we are moving into an era of new technology, it is fairly obvious that those people will be left behind and will continue to be forgotten by the economy unless we do something serious in this area. The Government has yet to put into place a serious and comprehensive program to deal with the existence of functional illiteracy in this country. Clearly, if they are going to have a chance to earn a living in this society which demands very high skill levels, they need to have the basic skills to allow them to take the training necessary for new jobs.
Some people pin their hopes for jobs on support of the high technology strategy. But we know from the comments of people such as the Canada Council on Social Development, which has analysed this situation, that while high technology will provide some employment it will not provide sufficient employment for all Canadians. It is going to be necessary to have in place a permanent and comprehensive kind of direct job creation system. The present system is ad hoc and temporary, where the names of programs change from month-to-month or year-to-year, and where there are numerous announcements about job creation but there is no permanent and comprehensive plan to provide employment for all those who cannot find it in the private sector.
Fundamentally, technological change offers us a challenge. It challenges the basic value, of our society as a whole and us as individual citizens. When the Minister spoke the other day he gave a very rosy picture of technological change and seemed to give us a kind of candy store approach to technological change. He had us going into the candy store as if we were children, picking a bonbon here, a licorice there, and generally enjoying ourselves. But that was not the full picture of the impact of technological change on our society.
The Conservatives have focused exclusively on research and development and investment in R and D. That reminds me a bit of the old economist who used to think that gold was the
source of wealth and riches. Well, that sort of economic theory is passe these days because we know that the real source of wealth and riches in this society is its people. Our fundamental commitment to people and the notion that everyone has the right to a job is the source of real value in society. We have to decide now whether technological change will be a burden on the backs of people or whether it will serve people. If it is going to serve people, then we will have to find ways of redefining work, expanding our definition of work, and paying the newly developed jobs adequate salaries.
The change going on in society today is a radical change, Mr. Speaker. Traditionally, farming, for example, was done by hand with the help of a horse and plow. But when mechanization came to the farm, the whole nature of farming changed and the number of people needed was greatly reduced. It is this kind of drastic change which is taking place in our society and we need a plan to deal with it, to make the change serve Canadians rather than Canadians serve the change and suffer through very high levels of unemployment as the price of bringing new technology to Canada.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comments of my two friends on the opposite benches representing views from Newfoundland, on the one hand, and from a Manitoba perspective on the other. I am pleased, at least, that we do not seem to have any neo-Luddite type of talk coming from the Opposition. There seems to be a recognition that Canada must embark upon and embrace, if you like, the new technologies, which is what our technology policy is intended to do and, I believe, will do.
I do think that there is a certain amount of wallowing in gloom and doom and much concern expressed about a matter which is of concern to all of us. That is the issue, of course, of unemployment. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that today's unemployment results from a combination of factors, one of which is clearly the recession through which the whole western industrialized society is currently moving-and moving out of, I might say. That is something about which one can be optimistic. However, we cannot neglect the fact, of course, that there is high unemployment in all countries. High unemployment and recession in countries where we send our goods will have a major impact on the Canadian economy for as long as the situation lasts. We know that. I believe that Canadians, through this recession, have come to realize the extent to which Canada is very much a part of the world trading community.
That being said, I frankly do not intend to engage in a lot of political rhetoric. I really feel that this debate deserves careful and thoughtful presentation by all who wish to engage in it. Some of the issues that we are considering are really issues for the future. They are issues of the Canada of tomorrow. I intend to deal with them in that light. It is a very important
May 6, 1983

discussion and one which I frankly welcome. It should be thoughtful and not hysterical. People should not be spooked by these opportunities which the new technologies are bringing to us and to other societies. The challenges must be addressed in a rational way, and I suggest that that is what we have been doing and what we will continue to do.
Therefore, I implore Hon. Members: do not cloud the issues. Let us clarify the issues. Let us have a dialogue which may begin in the House and stretch the full breath of the land so that Canadians will be more aware of what lies ahead, the challenges and the opportunities. I think I can satisfy Hon. Members in the House today in the course of these remarks that the opportunities are there, that all the scenarios possible are optimistic scenarios, the only exception being the neoLuddite school, in other words, the standstill philosophy which, of course, Canadians would not accept and which could only bring with it lower standards of living and certainly devalued currency, and would truly move us into the backwater of the progress sweeping the rest of the world. That Canadians will not accept.

First, Mr. Speaker, I realize that a document drafted in my Department has prompted this debate. It is an internal and confidential document which, apparently, was given to a Globe and Mail journalist. The document cannot really be described as a study and it cannot even be said to be a report. It was to be the basis of a debate with my colleagues and the starting point of discussions on the major issues with which the Canadian economy will have to come to grips over the next ten years. It is more properly a working paper which Ministers might consult when reviewing economic development priorities at the national and even the regional levels.
In the discharge of my duties as Minister of State for Economic Development, Mr. Speaker, I think it is my responsibility, and I should always bring to the attention of my colleagues and the Canadian public the challenges we must face thanks to that technological revolution. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity today to clarify the situation rather than paint it black.

That being said, let me review briefly the notice of motion proposed by the Opposition. It could really be divided into three parts. The first part deals with the issue of funding. It purports to condemn the Government or seeks the condemnation by the House of the Government for its failure to provide adequate and purposeful funding for research and development and specialized training necessary to cope with technological change in the workplace. This question has been debated and commented upon at some length since the budget was brought down. In fact, as we know, the budget provided over $700 million of incremental, direct, federal-and I underline "federal"-funding in this area. In addition, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) tabled with the budget a discussion
Supply
paper on the issue of research and development. He wants to know, and we want to know, what are the best techniques?
As studies show, we have one of the richest fiscal incentive regimes in all of the industrialized world, that is, with regard to stimulation of research and development in the private sector. However, perhaps it needs some fine-tuning. Perhaps it needs some enrichment here or there. That is what this open public discussion on the basis of the document tabled yesterday should show.
I would point out that, in terms of the commitment to increased research and development in all sectors, we are doing very well. Let us not consider it from a point of view of gloom and doom or-
[ Translation]
As I said a moment ago, by painting the situation in black, because frankly I can see that our policy will have a very promising outcome.

I see, for example, that we are on track with rising to 1.5 per cent of spending as a percentage of Gross National Product by 1985. That is something which is to be applauded. I think that the effort made by the private sector, by industry and by all communities in recent years has been very encouraging indeed. Of course, the motion speaks of specialized training.

I would like to refer to the speech which was delivered by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), when he tabled his budget. Here is an excerpt:
To take full advantage of technological advances, Canada will increasingly need well-educated and well-trained workers. Moreover, workers will have to acquire new skills and knowledge throughout their working lives. With this in mind, I am allocating tonight an additional $155 million for human resource development programs. This will bring to $1.2 billion this year the funds allocated for skills development in occupations that are significant for economic growth. Over 250,000 Canadians, half of them young people, will benefit this year from federal support for human resource development.

What else needs to be said? We heard durirg Question Period today, as well, the response of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) when he outlined the vast array of programs and the amount which is being spent on human resource development. Therefore, I really do not think that the Hon. Member's notice of motion is in fact well founded when it comes to the commitment of the Government in terms of expenditures themselves.
Let me consider the second part of the motion which was put forward. We speak of a displacement of jobs in manufacturing and in business services. Reference is made to the so-called Government study. As I said in my opening comments, there really is no Government study. There was a discussion document which was there to promote discussion, and it obviously has had that effect, partly through the leak of which we are all aware.

May 6, 1983
Supply
As the Hon. Member knows, there is much debate in the western world at the present time about what the impact of these new technologies may be. I was looking at the comments of the well known economist, Michael McCracken, which he aparently made during a radio interview in the course of this week. He takes very serious issue with the idea of job loss. He said perhaps the contrary, that if we do not embark on these new technologies, the result will be a much greater job loss, and I think we would all agree with that. He does not necessarily accept the view that these new technologies will bring about job loss.
What do we mean by job loss? I must say that I become somewhat alarmed when I see headlines such as "Job Loss Study". There is a very big difference between unemployment and job loss. If we automate and introduce robotics, if we introduce new systems for flexible manufacturing and provide more automation, surely there will be a job loss in that sector. It has long been predicted in all the industrialized countries that there would be a job loss in the manufacturing sector. I will come to the question of whether that is a bad occurrence in a few moments when I review some authorities on the subject. I do not believe that it is bad, and I suggest that I am supported by most independent studies. There will be a job loss, but what about the job gains? How many jobs will be created? What new opportunities will arise from these new technologies? Those are the questions that we must address. Does anyone really know the answer?
In that regard I would suggest that economists are very divided on this issue. There is an old saying about economists that if all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they would still point in all directions. Nothing could be more true when it comes to this debate. That is not to criticize economists, because they too have stimulated debate and put forward ideas. The fact is that I do not believe anyone completely understands these issues because no one has a crystal ball that can tell us what new opportunities will arise, just as we did not know what the automobile would do in terms of shopping centres, tourism, trailer homes and all those things that have evolved from the new transportation system. How do we know what the new information society will bring?
There is much reason to believe that it will bring a lot of good jobs. In fairness, let me say that there are two schools of thought on the subject. I would like to refer to both of them. One school of thought says that there will be more better paying jobs. That is an optimistic scenario and one that is obviously founded upon the historical pattern of technology and technological change. This is a serious school of thought and one that already has a certain amount of evidence to support its thesis.
For example, I refer to an article by Richard Riche who is a senior supervisory economist employed by the U.S. Department of Labour. This article comes from "Economic Impact" No. ^l, 1983. He says this:
When computers were first introduced for office data applications, predictions were made that large numbers of clerical and kindred workers would be
displaced; and job opportunities for millions of people, in what is one of the largest occupational employment categories, would be curtailed.
What actually did happen in the United States was quite different. In 1960 clerical workers numbered about 10 million and accounted for about 15 per cent of total U. S. employment. By 1980 there were more than 18 million clerical workers and they accounted for about 19 per cent of the total. Thus, instead of clerical worker employment decreasing as had been predicted, employment increased about 85 percent between 1960 and 1980. And clerical employment is projected to continue to increase significantly to 1990.
That regards the clerical sector about which much concern has been expressed.
Of course, the other sector is the manufacturing sector and the impact of robots there. With respect to robots, there are also some interesting comments in this same report. I read from page 23 where it states:
One survey of users and manufacturers of robots suggests that about 95 per cent of the jobs displaced by robots between now and 1990 will not involve unemployment because workers will be either retrained or, in some cases, retire because of age.
I can deal with the programs that are necessary for that, but we should not lose sight of it. There is much more, but I fear that time does not permit me to read all this into the record. I would be very happy to make some of this available to my hon. friends because I am sure they would find it interesting.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We feel that the Minister's statement is a very important one. He commenced his remarks at 20 minutes before the hour. We are prepared to go beyond the hour and give consent to allow the Minister to complete his statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has been informed that if unanimous agreement is sought it may be given in order to permit the Minister to commence his ten-minute question period at one o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that because I enjoy the calibre of the debate, and I believe it is an important one as it may be the beginning of a debate that will take place across the country. We will be able to address some of these issues which are very important, particularly to the generation of young Canadians who are so concerned about their future. I think it is important for us to realize what the opportunities and challenges are.
Let me continue this interesting comment on robots. It says:
Although it would seem logical that the initial impact of the installation of robots would be to reduce employment and, sometimes, to create some unemployment, this has not actually been the case to any great extent. The purpose of the introduction of robots is to improve productivity, thereby enhancing the competitiveness of the firm and the welfare of individuals associated with it. The existence and size of the initial employment effects are often overstated, since the reduction in work force resulting from the introduction of robots is partly offset by the hiring of maintenance personnel, workers to manufacture robots, and computer programmers to provide instructions.
It should be noted that the structure of employment will change in what most persons would regard as a positive direction.
I emphasize this:
Robots will usually replace workers engaged in monotonous tasks that are often physically overly demanding and mentally unrewarding. Sometimes, too,
May 6, 1983

the jobs taken over by robots are dangerous for humans. In these cases, the displaced workers may ultimately welcome robots as a means of freeing them to do more rewarding tasks.
I think that is a significant point that must be made in the context of this discussion.
We have another school of thought which tells us that we may indeed have more wealth through the new technologies but less jobs. That school also has some very credible spokesmen. One of the most credible is Wassily Leontief who was a Nobel prize winner in 1973. Leontieffs article, which I read and found interesting, can be found in Scientific American of September, 1982. This Scientific American publication is entirely devoted to issues on the mechanization of work. Leontief postulates that there indeed may be permanent job loss through these new technologies, and he bases himself in part on the only model he could find, which was Austria.
Some years ago Austria did a study of the effects of new technologies on the Austrian economy. He says:
The projections that carry the present state-of-the-art laborsaving technology into full application everywhere in the Austrian economy by 1990 lead in all cases to the largest increase in gross domestic product-
That is to say the most wealth:
-but also to the highest levels of unemployment, to unemployment of 10 percent, a level not experienced in Austria since the dark days of the 1930s. With curtailment in the length of the work week at the maximum degree of mechanization, the direction of both the positive and the negative changes remains the same but their absolute magnitudes are reduced. Unemployment in this case comes closer to the civilized Austrian experience of 2 percent.
Of course, he makes the argument that if that scenario is correct, we will have to address some major changes that will have to take place in the nature of work.
I remind the House that the work week has dropped from 67 hours 100 years ago down to 40 hours today. I do not believe that we should say that this is a dismal scenario that we are seeing. I suggest to my hon. friends that no matter which of these two positions is correct, either more better paying jobs or indeed less jobs through mechanization, but more wealth in both cases, we have the means at our disposal to address the problems because society will be the richer for it.
The only scenario where that does not take place is if we back away from our commitment to technology and the technological revolution. If we back away from it then, of course, we will see a fall in our standard of living. We will see a devalued currency. We will see massive unemployment because we simply will not be competitive in the international marketplaces and, I suppose, we will become the traditional hewers of wood and drawers of water.
There is tremendous excitement ahead for us. There are great opportunities. I would say that one could take either of the scenarios. I prefer the optimistic scenario because we have been that way in the past. We have been down that road. We have seen it happen in agriculture. Between 1946 and 1961 we lost half a million jobs in agriculture. We have seen employment in agriculture between 1946 to 1981 drop from 25 per cent of the work force to 4 per cent of the work force. I do not think anybody would consider those jobs lost; those are jobs displaced. But again of those scenarios-and I will just close
Supply
my comments with this one point-whether we have more better paying jobs or whether we have less jobs but more wealth in both cases, in either of them we have a transitional period that we have to address. We have to address that through retraining, through a commitment to a human resource development, to bringing new skills onstream, and above all by making young people in the schools of this country aware of the skills and disciplines they require to take advantage of the jobs that will be available through this technological revolution. That is why we have an awareness component. It is not a public relations component, as some of the journalists have said. It is an awareness component. It is to make young Canadians, particularly young girls in primary and secondary schools who are still not opting for the sciences, still not opting for mathematics and chemistry as they should, of the opportunities that lie ahead. For that purpose I was pleased to announce in the course of my comments earlier this week that we will be holding a Canada Tomorrow Conference which will bring together all the elements of our society. They are virtually all the elements of our society concerned with technology because technology impacts and has an effect on each and every sector and on each and every Canadian.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Minister's statement. I consider it an important statement. But the Minister tries to disregard what he calls a Cabinet study document as merely that. Yet that document, which somehow was leaked to the press, refers to the fact that because of the new technology and because of the micro-chip society in which we are moving, we will see unemployment in this country increase to 15 per cent by the end of the decade. We now have 600,000 women unemployed and we now have almost one million people who are long-term unemployed. The Minister has addressed himself to the Government's response and the way it is looking at changes in technology and its impact on the work place, but what do we do about the army of semiskilled people, and the people employed in the service sector who will see their jobs disappear? Do we reconcile ourselves to double-digit unemployment into the next decade, or do we address the problem of what technology will do to the unemployables of our society? As the Minister knows, a job today means the same to a person as a plot of land meant to a person in the pre-industrial revolution era. If you cannot provide a person with job opportunities, then that is the same as denying a peasant 100 years ago with enough land to feed himself and his family.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question in the light of the kind of unemployment, let us say, that Mr. Wassily Leontief predicts could be the case, because of there not being enough jobs. In other words, society will be wealthier. We are looking at the next decade, what about the next 50 years? What kind of Canada will we have in 50 years? How many people will be employed in production? How much leisure time will society have? How will the jobs which do exist be distributed? That strikes me as being a very important issue and

May 6, 1983
Supply
one that, as I say, might very well be addressed in time through such issues as part time work and a reduced work week or whatever. Those issues have to be addressed. I accept that. I do not think we are there yet. That basically is founded upon the principle that, in fact, there will be fewer jobs.
If one goes the other way with the other scenario and says "No, there will be more jobs," then I suppose the Hon. Member's question would have to be interpreted as being "How do you make sure that people are trained to take those jobs?" That I accept as also a challenge, and that is why the Minister of Employment and Immigration pointed out today that this $1.2 billion referred to in the budget speech is devoted to human resource development. Maybe the Hon. Member is saying it is not enough. I do not know whether it is enough or not enough. The programs are seen to be effective. They are training people in the so-called microchip society, but that is not something we are just moving into. It has been with us for some time. We have had it in the offices of the nation for some time. In fact, in that area we are among the most advanced in the world.
We do have a record to look at. I would say the opportunities are there. There is no reason to talk about 15 per cent unemployment in 1990 or 1991. I wish the Hon. Member would not keep referring to this paper as if it were the gospel on this subject. Not at all. It was written in order to create discussion. It is based upon certain ideas which are well known. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Every prediction shows that jobs in the manufacturing sector will decrease through the new technologies. That is true in the United States, it is true in western Europe, and Japan, and it is true here. It has be' n said in some countries that the percentage of people in that sector may go from 20 per cent of the work force to 5 per cent of the work force. When we know we have over two million people in manufacturing, if we lose half of them, let us say over the decade, that is a million lost jobs. But that does not mean that there will not be a million jobs created in some other sector. We also have approximately, let us say, two million people coming into the work force.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am duty bound to apply the rules of the House which require very short answers and very short questions. I would point out to the Minister that there are a number of Hon. Members who are rising and want to put questions.


Donald James Johnston: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: These Members will not have an opportunity to put their questions if the answers remain that long.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question to the one asked by the Hon. Member from Newfoundland. At the outset I want to say that we have to realize that this new society is here already. We cannot put our heads in the sand and pretend that it does not exist or that we can stop it. The important question, as the Minister now says, is how we do the
transition and make sure that we are part of it so that we do have a better standard of living.
My question concerns retraining. Japan has about five times as many people as Canada, and 40 times as many people in the electrical engineering schools as we have. I think that is one reason why they are so far ahead of us in the area of advanced technology. If you look at the Science Council reports, they state that we lag behind almost every other industrial country in the world. Why has this Government allowed this to happen? Why does this Government not make advanced technology a more important priority in terms of spending? Why does this Government not make retraining of workers a more important priority in terms of spending? I know the pie has only that many pieces, Mr. Speaker, but other countries have chosen this area as their major priority. Why have we not done that?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we are doing that. We have provided very substantial increased funding to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, for example-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Compared to others?


Donald James Johnston: -which is the centrepiece, if you like, of our post-graduate studies in this country. The federal Government has been there. We would hope that more of the provinces would get onboard and support that sector as well. A recent study in Quebec showed how important the federal contribution has been.
I know I should not go on at great length and I will not, but I do feel that an effort is being made. The percentage increases in all these sectors in terms of Government spending have gone up very, very substantially over the last several years.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Minister. Considering an announcement he made some time ago that there would be a national conference on the subject, I would like to start by asking him about the problems of structural unemployment which Members see daily in their constituencies, when people are untrained and lack the skills for the jobs available. I would like to know whether the Minister has the assurance of the provinces and other partners in this federation. This country is so decentralized that education is a provincial and not a federal responsibility, but just the same, we do have something like $3 billion for education. I want to ask the Minister specifically whether he can count on the co-operation of the provinces and the private sector and the associations generally concerned with this area, so that the conference will produce results and really be a success?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to co-operation or consultation among all partners. I must say I have not had an opportunity to discuss our Canada Tomorrow conference with the provinces or the private sector, because the
May 6, 1983

idea itself was in fact part of the budget. However, I can assure the House that in the course of my travels across Canada, and in discussions with the provinces and consultations with industry, I have seen an increased interest in technology. In fact, everyone is quite anxious to co-operate. There are very few people in this country who fail to realize the importance of technology for economic recovery. It is therefore my conviction that all the parties concerned, all the provinces, industry and the academic world will be enthusiastic participants.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I find that the Minister is on the right track and is trying to address it, but in my opinion, he is taking a tunnel-vision approach to it. The Minister referred to hewers of wood and drawers of water. We have done this well. What incentive will the Government introduce so that we are better producers of our wood and better protectors of our water? You can justify it as you want. He did not refer to a book from the Science Council of Canada, which is an excellent document. He must go beyond the manufacturing and service sector. Where are these people going to go? How are we going to develop Canada beyond the 50-mile stretch along the border of the United States?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member touches on an important point. As I said, the time available for this kind of debate does not allow us really to cover the waterfront. There is no question that a major thrust of the technology policy has to be in our traditional sectors. That is often forgotten. We talk about hi-tech and silicone valley. What is more important-and I have made this point in speeches-is that we diffuse technology in the traditional sectors, that we apply the latest technology to the forestry sector and the extractor industry sector.
These will continue to be Canada's strengths in many ways. We are not going to change the face of our economy overnight. I see that as being fundamental, applying these new technologies to sources of traditional strengths. I would cite the forestry sector in particular where a major thrust must be made to ensure that it remains competitive. The latest technology must be used in reforestation, harvesting and processing, and in new areas such as engineered woods as well as the biotechnology areas which complement them in so many respects.
I accept the point made by the Hon. Member. It is not an area that is neglected. I simply did not have time in the course of my remarks to deal with it at any length.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.14 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today is not only timely but it is crucial to
Supply
the future development of Canada. We can either move with confidence into the twenty-first century or we can linger behind as suppliers of raw material to the other industrialized nations of the world. That choice is ours.
We are overwhelmed almost daily by new technological advances. As Alvin Toffler puts it, we are encountering the third wave and Canada cannot afford to ride that wave on imported technology, nor can we afford to use our limited cash resources to develop products that no one can sell.
Speaking for the riding of St. Catharines, I am naturally interested in research and development and the advantages that a vigorous R and D program might have for the shipbuilding and automotive industries. Both of those industries have been harder hit during this recession than most other segments of our society.
A moment ago, I heard the Minister speak rather disparagingly of the Opposition as purveyors of doom and gloom. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that it is not our purpose and intent to make known the facts simply on the basis of preaching doom and gloom, but we want the country to know that things could be different if the process were different and if the programs were different. We are here simply to set out the facts and the records of the Government as they are.
We have heard some reference made to Japan in the course of the debate. I would like to make more such references. I will not dwell too long on the fact that the Japanese automobile and shipbuilding industries have competed vigorously and successfully here in Canada and throughout the world. Indeed, in terms of the automobile, the Japanese now control between 25 and 35 per cent of the Canadian market. This success has come about in large part because their Government, management and labour have been able to pool their resources and talents, their knowledge and experience toward the development and production of marketable goods.
Shipbuilding is perhaps the best example of the co-operative, pragmatic approach of the Japanese. As technology advanced and the capital equipment of the Japanese shipyards became obsolete and as the decision was made by the Japanese Government to exploit the world market, the Japanese essentially closed their shipyards for a period of some two years. They closed to regroup, retool and retrain. After that hiatus, the Japanese stormed the world and are now in control of over 50 per cent of the shipbuilding market.
There are several lessons that could be learned from this example, not the least of which is that Government and industry-sponsored research signals the need and the value of putting industry in Canada today on an entirely new footing. Research gave the Japanese an edge, the edge needed to give them a competitive advantage. On the automotive side, the Japanese were not only able to anticipate the rising demand for smaller cars and trucks, they were able to continue upgrading their production through style, design, construction and engineering methods to put those vehicles on world markets. It comes as no surprise that the Japanese are investing heavily in

May 6, 1983
Supply
research and development. At present that investment amounts to 2.4 per cent of their GNP.
By comparison, the Canadian Government has left our shipbuilding and automotive industries to get along as best they can on the research and development side. Even worse, the Government has actively assisted exporting countries in both these two industries to gain stronger footholds in the Canadian market. Industries locked into price and marketing wars with imports find it more and more difficult to free up the research and development dollars needed by themselves. As those dollars diminish, the industries' ability to stay ahead of changing technology and consumer trends also diminishes.
I recognize that to accuse a Government of working against the interests of industries such as the automotive and shipbuilding industries is a serious charge. Yet there is no other conclusion one could reach when one considers the Government's action with respect to each of those industries. The shipbuilding industry was promised a shipbuilding policy as early as the spring of 1980. Three years went by before any action was taken. During that time even Petro-Canada was out buying offshore. To the credit of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, lay-offs were delayed and minimized to an extent that belied the extreme difficulties they were experiencing. While Petro-Canada was buying offshore, the Government was busy taxing away what business the industry could generate. All Hon. Members will recall the discriminatory tax imposed on marine bunker fuel. A number of Government Members spoke out strongly against that tax, and then went on to vote for it when it was before the House. The industry mounted a strong lobby to oppose the tax, but to little or no avail.
Running concurrently with that furore was the November budget proposal-and now the law-to halve the capital cost allowance for the first year of acquisition. This measure added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the tax liability of a prospective ship owner. Orders fell off, to no one's surprise.
One can be forgiven for thinking that these two measures were the only ones with which the industry had to cope. They are bad enough, but we cannot forget the hike in seaway tolls and lockage fees which contributed to the decline in shipping. Transportation is a highly competitive industry where a cent per tonne difference in price decides whether a customer will use the transportation mode of a railway, shipyard or truck, inside or outside Canada.
The Americans encountered similar economic difficulties. They took action to put their railways on a more competitive footing, an action opposite to the direction being taken by the Canadian Government with respect to shipping. Hence, while shipping costs were going up because of Government-imposed taxes and fees, United States rail costs were going down because Americans entered into a deregulation exercise. I point out these factors and considerations to demonstrate that the industries in question can only allocate money for research and development if they have money remaining after paying their operational expenses. For the Government to nail the
private sector for not spending enough while taxing the sector beyond reason is simply hypocritical.
Despite the albatross of high taxation and discriminatory policies, the private sector has managed to undertake some impressive research and development programs. Some of the programs have led to growth and prosperity for some sectors, while others have been able to maintain their viability by new product innovations. However, far too many businesses and industries have not been able to stay ahead of research and development in their fields, while others have come to rely upon imported technology. If we believe it is important that Canadian research and development be homegrown to the greatest possible extent-and I do-the federal Government will have to assist industry and its promotion and development more than it is presently doing.
After 15 years of neglect the Government is now proposing that a goal of 1.5 per cent of GNP be reached as quickly as possible for the support of research and development. That is almost a full percentage point behind that of the United States, Japan and West Germany. By way of contrast, the 1979 Progressive Conservative Government established a goal of 2.5 per cent. Our view was and is that Canada has lost ground which it has to make up. It not only lost ground before 1979 but has lost even more since then.
It is simply inadequate to throw money at a problem. There is no end to the projects which might be funded by someone somewhere. This can always be used as a plausible case for the value of funding a particular area of research. Tough decisions have to be made. In times of economic difficulties perhaps those decisions are even tougher, but we must face them and go with areas of endeavour which show the greatest promise.
In keeping with this Government's approach, I note that $1.5 million of the $100 million in new high technology spending will be allocated to public relations. The best public relations in the world are more jobs and greater economic prosperity, not the further expenditure of public dollars on Government advertising to perpetrate a myth. After all, when we compare the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising for Petro-Canada with the decreasing support for Petro-Canada by Canadians, we might conclude that Government advertising has a negative effect upon Canadians.
High technology is a booming sector of the economy. It is creating thousands of jobs where few existed before. It is not the net sum of employment. High-tech businesses are usually very profitable and are responsible corporate citizens. They are having little or no difficulty convincing a country with high unemployment that high-tech is one of the bright stars on the horizon. We might then wonder whether the Government's $1.5 million public relations program is not ultimately designed to associate it with a success story instead of an unparalleled record of failures.
I mentioned unemployment a moment ago. That crisis is the second aspect of the motion before us today. St. Catharines-Niagara has been extremely hard hit by unemployment,
May 6, 1983

primarily because of the Government's inept and incompetent handling of the economy. Wonderful promises were made in 1980 about an industrial strategy, lower interest rates and lower energy prices. These were to happen, but once the election of February 1980 was over the Government proceeded to lead Canada into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Niagara, as an industrialized region, felt this more than most. Over the last year the St. Catharines-Niagara reporting area has more often than not been among the worst three urban centres for unemployment in Canada. Last month, as Government Members were quick to point out, unemployment dropped by almost 2 per cent in the Niagara, putting us as fourth worst in Canada. What Government Members fail to mention, though, is the fact that better unemployment statistics are coming forward because people are removing themselves from the labour market. They are just giving up any hope of finding a job. In the Niagara some 10,000 to 20,000 people are in this category. If those persons become heartened by the Government's optimistic and selfcongratulatory mouthings and rejoin the labour force, the unemployment rate in the Niagara would be at at least the minimum which we projected of 22 per cent.
There is little comfort to be gained from lower unemployment statistics when the reason behind them is the despair and despondency of many thousands of Canadians. Even now, with all the benefits of the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), there were 7,000 fewer jobs in industrial Canada than in the month previous, and the unemployment rate in Ontario rose in the last month from 11.4 per cent to 11.7 per cent. The Niagara area fared even worse than that.
A significant number of those who are now unemployed can expect a brighter future when and if economic recovery takes hold, but many will not have that brighter future, Mr. Speaker, because they will not have the skills to accommodate and to meet the needs of that future. The motion before us draws attention to this fact and cites a federal study's conclusion that unemployment could reach 15 per cent by 1991. That is a figure we might have to live with. We cannot expect, nor should we, to raid other countries for the skilled workers needed to fill some select Canadian jobs, as we so often have done in the past. Surely, we can train our own people for our own jobs and prospects.
Study after study, including the parliamentary task force report "Work for Tomorrow", has cried out for more retraining programs to put Canadians in a position to fill those jobs requiring new or upgraded skills. The Government's response has been totally inadequate. It seems that the Government would rather issue Unemployment Insurance cheques than to use that money and the innate willingness of the unskilled worker to receive training to sponsor a national drive to get Canadians ready for the challenges which lie ahead.
The high-tech revolution can be a positive and welcome one for Canada if we are prepared to stay ahead of it. Nevertheless, if we continue to drift as we are now, that revolution will neither be as great nor as positive as it should be. The time for
Supply
action is fast running out, Mr. Speaker. Let us get on with the job now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are the Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken? If not, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some trepidation. This is a rather important debate. The tone was set this morning by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and reinforced by the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party and the Minister.
It is an interesting fact that most of us on both sides of the House do attach much importance to the subject of job creation and what I may call the "cybernetic revolution" we are facing. The fact is that we have a challenge to meet, but as Canadians, I am sure we have the energies and the potential will to do so with success. Rather than speak gloomily about the subject, I would like to address it on two aspects dealing with the revolution. First, I would like to speak to the research and development component of the motion. Second, I would like to address the question of training and development of our human resources which is our Canadian wealth in the future.
I would like to clarify for Hon. Members certain statements made about the level of research and development funding in Canada and about this Government's commitment to increasing R and D so that we do meet our investment target of 1.5 per cent of GNP by 1985. Canada has passed through a period of relatively low investments in research and development, but this trend has now been reversed. In 1982, Canada's gross expenditures and R and D reached 1.34 per cent of GNP, well on our way to meeting our target of 1.5 per cent of GNP by 1985. During the late sixties and for the first half of the seventies, there was a steady decline in the share of the GNP which was invested in R and D. As a percentage of GNP, Canada's gross domestic expenditures on R and D declined from what was then an all-time high of 1.29 per cent in 1969 to a low of 0.96 per cent in 1976. Spending by the Canadian business sector was particularly weak when compared to the expenditures of the industrial sectors of the major industrialized nations. Moreover, most of our international competitors were achieving larger productivity growths and our deficit in high technology trade was on the increase.
To provide Canadian industry with incentives to increase its R and D expenditures and by so doing increase its productivity and competitiveness in the domestic and international marketplaces, the federal Government introduced an R and D investment tax credit in 1977 and followed up in 1978 with an additional allowance for scientific research. Later, in December 1980, Cabinet endorsed an R and D Planning Framework which set a national target for R and D expenditures in the natural sciences and engineering to reach 1.5 per cent of GNP by 1985. Half of these investments were to be made by the industrial sector and one-third by the federal Government, with the remainder to be taken up by the other sectors. The

Supply
framework also established growth targets for gross domestic expenditures on R and D and for the expenditures of the various funding sectors. Beginning in 1979, gross domestic expenditures on R and D were to increase annually at an average rate of 20 per cent, with industrial support increasing at 27 per cent and federal funding to be fixed at 17 per cent.
Considerable progress has been achieved since the introduction of the tax measures and the adoption of the R and D plan. Over the period 1979-82, gross domestic expenditures on R and D have increased at an average rate of 20 per cent, industry's investment has grown at 26 per cent per annum, and the federal contribution has advanced yearly at a rate of approximately 18 per cent. These growth rates are almost identical to those contained in the R and D Planning Framework. The downward trend in the gross domestic expenditures on R and D to the Gross National Product ratio has been arrested and reversed. From 1976 onwards gross domestic expenditures have consistently increased at a faster rate than the GNP and, since the approval of the R and D Planning Framework, gross domestic expenditures on R and D, as a share of GNP, has increased from its base value of 1.03 per cent in 1979 to 1.34 per cent in 1982. In 1982, R and D expenditures in the natural sciences amounted to $4.7 billion, $833 million, or almost 22 per cent more than in the previous year. This is the largest year-over-year percentage increase ever recorded. During the same period federal funding of GERD increased by $232 million from $1.4 billion in the previous year to $1.6 billion in 1982. In real term, national R and D expenditures have increased each year since 1976 at an average of 7 per cent annually and between 1980 and 1982 have grown at 10 per cent per annum.
In addition to the support provided by grants, contracts and contributions, the federal Government also encourages industrial R and D through a variety of indirect measures. In 1980, for example, 343 firms filed claims amounting to $181 million in additional allowances for scientific research and $83 million in R and D investment tax credits. Corporate taxes were probably reduced by between $90 to $120 million as a result of these claims.
Federal assistance is also provided for other stages of the innovation process. In 1982, the major industry support programs spent $429 million to improve the innovative capabilities of Canadian industry.
More than half the $2.6 billion in industrial R and D was performed in high technology sectors such as communications equipment, aerospace, petroleum products and chemicals. These four sectors carried out $1,228 million of R and D in 1982, $255 million more than in the previous year and roughly twice the amount performed in 1979.
Preliminary data for 1983 suggested a slowing down in the growth of funding in both the federal Government and industry sectors. However, in the case of the federal Government, these data were based on the 1983-84 Main Estimates and did
May 6, 1983
not contain the expenditures from a number of Cabinet Committee decisions made since that time.
Nor did the data reflect the April 19 budget initiatives which include $100 million over the next two years for new technology policy initiatives, $180 million for high technology procurement and $290 million to be spent on new research facilities.
In the case of industry, the 1983 data are based on forecasts of expenditures derived from the 1982 industry survey. Once again, these forecasts do not anticipate the increased tax credit or flow through tax incentives proposed in the April 19 budget. These measures are expected to increase Government support of industry by some $185 million in the first full year in which they will apply and encourage substantial increases in industry funding. Even without these new incentives, other evidence suggests that the 1983 figures are conservative. For example, The Financial Post survey of industry R and D indicates 54 of 82 firms will increase their R and D expenditures in real terms over the next three years.
Of the $3,242 million allocated for science and technology expenditures in 1983-84, $2,611 million or 80 per cent will be for activities in the natural sciences and engineering. R and D in the natural sciences will amount to $1,956 million, 11 per cent more than last year, and in the related scientific activities expenditures will increase 12 per cent from $585 million to $655 million. Since 1979-80, expenditures on R and D and related scientific activities will have grown at annual rates of 15 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.
Approximately 52 per cent of the federal 1983-84 R and D program is allocated for projects relating to natural resources, including food and oceans, energy and the advancement of science. Another 11 per cent will be spent in response to initiatives from the industrial sector and 8 per cent on health R and D. In recent years, energy and space have been the fastest growing program areas with increases averaging 23 per cent per annum between 1981-82 and 1983-84.
Federal R and D expenditures in the industry sector will amount to $462 million, 27 per cent more than the 1982-83 level and more than twice the 1979-80 total of $213 million. Over the five-year period, federal funding of industrial R and D will have increased by 21 per cent per annum. Federal R and D expenditures on university R and D have grown by 17 per cent per annum during this period and by 15 per cent for federal intramural R and D.
During the 1983-84 fiscal year this Government will spend an estimated $631 on activities in the human sciences. This is 8 per cent more than the $583 million spent in 1982-83 and 59 per cent more than the 1979-80 expenditures of $397 million.
For all these reasons, this Government is confident that Canada will continue its progress toward the 1985 target of 1.5 per cent. I thank Hon. Members for letting me put these figures on the record because I do think they are important. As Members know, the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, which regularly goes through these exercises of
May 6, 1983

rather dry figures, is always interested, and I thought it would be appropriate at this time to make these public.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to speak to a matter that is closer to my riding and to your own riding of Ottawa West as well, namely, training and development.
As we all know, a number of companies in the Ottawa area are specialized in high technology I am thinking, for instance, of Mitel, which has made a tremendous contribution to Canada's economy by taking advantage of the latest modern technologies. I am of course delighted to see these companies expand, and in fact, Mitel recently announced it had obtained a very important contract for exporting telephone communications equipment.
Mr. Speaker, before going into the details of my subject, which is training and development, I would also like to draw the attention of the House today to an article in the Financial Post published under the title "High-tech booster", which revealed that "Canada's high-tech sector is well pleased by Finance Minister Marc Lalonde's April budget, which contains several significant investment changes and more than $500 million-worth of incentives".
Mr. Speaker, that appeared today, in the Financial Post.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the whole article, although there are some very interesting explanations concerning the measures contained in the last budget which, as I said earlier, are likely to promote what is known as research and development, that is, things that are essential to the growth of our economy.
Organizations that reacted favourably to measures aimed at assisting progress in the technology sector also included the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, whose Executive Director, Mr. Robert Long, indicated that the result would be increased investment in this sector.
In an economy that is primarily based on private enterprise, I see these reactions as signs of a trend that will lead to practical projects and thus jobs, and that is worth a lot more than gratuitous statements to the effect the Government has failed to act in this area.
This is not to say that the situation is satisfactory or that we can look forward to a rosy future, because the unemployment rate remains high, despite our present economic recovery. It is clear that many workers who have been laid off in certain industries and certain sectors will never get back the jobs they had before. They will have to be redirected elsewhere, if possible to jobs where they can use the same skills, but in many cases, these workers will have to be retrained. In fact, the National Training Act, which was passed in the House last year, will enable the Government of Canada to spend nearly $1 billion on training and development. Mr. Speaker, I think these expenditures are essential, because they will help yound people to acquire the training they need to get jobs that require new skills.
Supply
We must look ahead and we cannot afford to listen to people who want to perpetuate industries that are labour-intensive but are technically obsolete in some areas and where foreign competition is practically eliminating us from the market. On the contrary, we must develop advanced technologies and not only maintain or improve our position on the domestic market but also make gains on market abroad. All this will also require the co-operation of provincial authorities-again, in connection with the National Training Act-because we all know that the provinces, which have jurisdiction in education matters, have a very substantial say in the development of occupational training programs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a comments from a talk by Dr. Larkin Kerwin, President of the National Research Council, who spoke to the Richelieu Club of Ottawa. This is in connection with what I just said about the problems of coordinating training programs to allow for both national priorities and the priorities of the provinces which are constitutionally responsible for education. I shall now quote Dr. Kerwin:
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism or co-ordinating body between the Federal Government and the provinces as far as scientific research and development is concerned, and as a result, it is difficult to define priorities in this respect. The sensible thing to do would be for both levels of government to agree on a common strategy, with definite emphasis on establishing high-technology industries.
We must therefore provide a comprehensive solution to this problem. We must urge the provinces, the universities and the entire post-secondary sector to work together with the Federal Government and sit down and determine our objectives, once and for all. That is why this morning, in the House, I asked the Minister whether he could count on the co-operation of the provinces. He answered, as Hon. Members will recall, that he had not yet approached the provinces. I hope, and I say this very sincerely, that all the provinces will sit down with the Federal Government in order to establish these mechanisms which are essential if we are to meet our common objectives, namely, training our human potential, our young people, in both technological and industrial skills.
It is no use going on about what happened in the past when workers were often trained for occupations where not enough jobs were available. From now on, we shall have to be very careful in selecting the kind of training we want to provide, not only as a matter of economics but also in order to maximize effectiveness.
In fact, the new program set up by the Department of Employment and Immigration contains a number of elements that will be very helpful in this respect.
First of all, we have the Canadian Occupational Projections System which makes it possible to collect, compile and transmit information on future manpower supply and demand, by

May 6, 1983
Supply
occupation. The program will help improve long-term human resources planning in Canada. There is also the Skills Growth Fund, which this year will make some $100 million available to Canadian institutions that are anxious to modernize or expand.
I am not unfamiliar with this fund, Mr. Speaker, because on March 17, here in the House, I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) for details about a grant provided by the fund to help create a training center for the high-technology industry here in Ottawa. The seven firms participating in this enterprise are: NABU, Epitek, Digital Equipment, Canadian Marconi, Mitel, Gandalf and System-house, which are now developing plans for this special training program. The participation of this consortium is a perfect example of co-operation between the Federal Government and the private sector in the context of training Canadians so they will be able to meet the challenges of the eighties.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to achieve high levels of employment and an increase in real wages, we must be able to provide Canadian workers with skills that are sought after by growth-sector industries. The key element of a labour market strategy for the eighties is therefore to improve and fine tune occupational training. The National Occupational Training Program, established under the National Training Act, has provided the basis for such action.
I see that you are rising, Mr. Speaker. If my time has expired, I am sorry, but I would have liked to continue my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for allowing the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to finish his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you for giving me more time, Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. As I said earlier, our aim was to make sure that employers could find workers with the skills required to expand their businesses and to help individuals acquire the necessary skills to become more productive and more competitive on the labour market. The National Training Act determines where training funds will be allocated, that is mostly for training activities in occupations of national importance.
Mr. Speaker, the key elements of the training strategy to be implemented under the Act in order meet our needs are as follows, I shall be very brief because I would like to cover this most important issue as completely as possible. First, more information must be obtained about the needs for various skills. To this end, governments, business and labour must, of course, work together under the Canadian Occupational Forecasting Program.
Some changes must also be made to training and development facilities to help them provide the required training. The
various establishments must adapt to the new conditions in order to provide the training courses deemed necessary. This adaptation is difficult, I am told, because the increase the number of trainees is now at a standstill. Because of this, special funds will have to be earmarked for the expansion of training facilities in areas where the need is greatest. Projects funded by the Skills Growth Fund established under the National Training Act are already giving results, as in the case of the seven Ottawa companies I mentioned earlier.
Elsewhere, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, for instance, is already providng a computer design and manufacturing program. The Winnipeg Computing Devices Corporation has developed computer training courses for underprivileged youths and the Holland College in Prince Edward Island has a marine techniques program.
The quantity and quality of industrial training must therefore be improved. Particularly, on the job training for jobs geared to the growth of Canada should be increased. The revised Industrial Training and Critical Trades Skills Training Programs are essential tools for making the necessary improvements.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remember spending many years of my life in school, from 1960 to 1972, when the number of technical schools in Canada grew tremendously under a program introduced by Mr. Diefenbaker in 1957 to encourage the provinces to build technical schools in order to meet the challenge of the 70s. We took up a challenge in 1980; in 1990, we shall have to get together, develop new techniques and direct our programs toward youth training.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members rising to ask questions or make comments on the speech of the Hon. Member? If not, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion before the House today, that this House condemns the Government for its failure to provide adequate and purposeful funding for research and development and specialized training, necessary to cope with technological change in the workplace. According to a federal Government study this will cause serious displacement of jobs in manufacturing and business services, resulting in continuing high unemployment, forecast to reach 15 per cent by 1991. I do so because it is surely one of the most urgent issue before the nation. This issue is not just an international one but also one which confronts each of our constituencies.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), in introducing the motion today indicated that the Government is finally coming to a new realization, in part because of a study which was leaked to the public. The Government is being besieged by groups and sectors across the
May 6, 1983

society to give some leadership, in terms of a national effort, to deal with the changing times.
Now we are told that the Government is beginning a process of conditioning Canadians to a situation which might well have been avoided had there been, during the last 15 years, any reading of the signs of the times which are before us. As my colleague said, we are placed in a situation today where there are some 609,000 women and some 624,000 youth between the ages of 15 and 24 who are unemployed. They are the ones who are the first to go and the last back in the work force.
In his response in the debate, the Minister has set several scenarios before us and has sought to take attention away from the failure of the Government to plan through these years. He has suggested instead that we now play catch-up football. He tells that we are in a transitional period, of which we are all aware; and that this must be addressed, as it must be and on an emergency basis. There will now be a propaganda program in the schools called an awareness program and there will be a Canada Tomorrow Conference. Had the Minister and his officials been taking the warnings of the Science Council of Canada and those of other Government agencies seriously through the years, we would not be in this situation.
Speaking to the 1983 general meeting of faculty and staff at the University of Waterloo, an institution with world class technological capacity, the President, Dr. Douglas Wright, said:
The transformation of the economy now taking place, driven by new technologies and international competition, is leading to a more fundamental division in the labour force. In the next few years, unskilled workers will face rapidly declining prospects and the role of knowledge-based workers will become much more critical. Canada's future depends more on its human resources than on its natural resources. It seems no accident that the most successful economies in the world today are resource-poor and technology-rich. They all put a premium on rigour in education and training. They are all committed to maintaining longterm competitiveness through research and development.
By way of reflection on that comment I was interested to learn, for example, of the integration of universities and industry in Japan. At the University of Tokyo there are now some six professors of robotics in the engineering faculty. They feed their research and development directly into the Japanese car industry. Presently, 25 per cent of the cost of a car in Canada is in electronics and 90 per cent of that electronics comes from Japan into the North American automotive centres.
In an article in the Business Quarterly of 1982, Professor MacMillan suggests that before long even our base resources will not be needed. The Japanese are in the process of developing a ceramic base for engine blocks which will no longer require the traditional metals to be used.
Today we are at a point where there is need to help small businesses apply new technology. Small businesses persons in my area of southwestern Ontario in Kitchener-Waterloo say that they cannot often be accepted because they do not have a track record. The Government wants to continue on the safe route and they are left out.
Supply
I want to focus for a moment on 52 per cent of our society which has been rigorously studying the implications of new technology. That sector consists of women and the organizations that speak for them. I want to draw to the attention of the House and our nation the current participation by female workers in our economy, and then move on to some suggestions about the importance of retraining and training programs to ensure that women are not made to suffer the brunt of job displacement due to technological change in the work place.
Let us review for a moment labour participation. In 1982, there were some 4.844 million women in the paid labour force. That is over 50 per cent of all Canadian women. Of those women in the labour force, 65 per cent were under 45, and 45 per cent were women with children under the age of three. The overwhelming majority of these women were single, widowed, divorced or the sole support of dependants. In addition, almost half of the wives in two income earning families were married to spouses earning less than $15,000 a year.
In 1981, the average income of a women in the paid labour force was about $8,100, which is less than half the average male wage of $16,659. If only full time work is considered, the average woman today earns 58 per cent of her male counterpart's average wage. That is $12,069 compared to $20,719.
Let us consider the matter of retraining of women in high technology. From December, 1981, to December, 1982, the unemployment rate among women rose from 9 per cent to 12.1 per cent, an increase of 41 per cent. Seventy per cent of women in the paid labour force are concentrated in low paid job ghettos in the clerical, sales and service occupations. The situation there is not improving.
Between 1975 and 1980, the female share of good managerial, professional and technical jobs increased by 1.5 per cent while women's share of traditional female jobs increased by
3.5	per cent. The over-all number of women in the latter category is far more significant than the managerial category.
Women are also losing ground in teaching, traditionally one of the best occupations for them. Between 1975 and 1980, 66.7 per cent of new full time teaching jobs went to men.
To this dismal picture must be added the possible impact of high technology, the subject we are addressing today, on women in the paid labour force. The job ghettos in which the majority of women in the paid labour force are clustered are prime targets for the efficiency and productivity improvements made possible by the micro-chip revolution. Up to one million jobs presently performed by women may disappear by 1990.
While the total number of jobs may remain stable and even increase, depending on Canada's over-all success in developing this new industry, workers with existing skills, many of them women, may well find themselves displaced.
To further compound the problem, all indications are that the skills gap between the old jobs wiped out by the new technology and the new ones created may be too great to be bridged by on the job training alone. This is especially true of clerical work. In order to prevent massive unemployment among women and the attendant social consequences for them

May 6, 1983
Supply
and their families, and in order to prevent widespread opposition to the new technology, these displaced workers must be retrained.
My Party is not prepared to abandon one million female workers. It is committed to the following measures to ensure that the necessary retraining takes place. First, financial incentives, especially tax measures, for employers to retrain existing employees prior to the introduction of new technology which renders their present skills obsolete. Second, financial incentives to industry, educational institutions and the Provinces to enable them to provide training which is targeted not only at the new high-technology jobs but also, wherever possible, at the displaced workers. I notice that there is nothing like that in Bill C-150 which covers educational transfers. If the Government is going to put strings on these transfers, why not put some strings on the training for women? Third, the supplementing of on the job training by skill development leave or some other form of paid or subsidized educational leave.
Fourth, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to permit recipients to take appropriate retraining programs without loss of benefits.
Fifth, amendments to the Canada Labour Code specify a minimum standard for employees under federal jurisdiction with respect to consultation prior to the introduction of technological changes into the workplace with respect to retraining and with respect to health and safety standards in relation to new technology. The Canada Labour Code amendments are particularly important to women since the vast majority are non-unionized and therefore cannot bargain for such protection.
We turn now to the matter of training for women. We note that at the same time as traditional women's jobs are disappearing women continue to enter the labour force in ever increasing numbers. Presently six out of ten new entrants are women, both recent graduates and older women, and this number is expected to increase to seven out of ten in the next decade. The majority of these women are still equipping themselves for traditional occupations. Second to teaching, clerical work is still the most common occupation for female Bachelor of Arts graduates. Most women with business diplomas become clerks, compared to the majority of their male counterparts with similar qualifications who go into sales or management.
Women coming out of educational institutions, or from the home, must be encouraged to move into non-traditional occupations, especially those areas expected to be "priority" occupations in the next decade, through such measures as specialized counselling and special training grants.
In particular, my Party is committed to the following measures in relation to training. First, the substantial expansion of the Outreach Programs which counsel women reentering the labour force while at the same time ensuring that these programs continue to be operated as much as possible by the client groups.
Second, significant expansion of the CEIC Program for nontraditional training for women to ensure that women obtain their fair share of Government-sponsored training places for non-traditional jobs-currently only 6.5 per cent of such spaces are occupied by women-and to provide fiscal incentives to employees to hire and to train women in non-traditional occupations.
Third, reorientation of Canada Employment Centres generally so that they no longer act as a barrier to women seeking to enter non-traditional jobs. It is interesting to note that studies continue to indicate that Canada Employment counsellors are still channelling women into clerical training programs.
I want to pay a special tribute to the women's groups in the Waterloo region who are making an important contribution to the study of the effects of high technological changes in the workplace in the midst of that area in the country which is beset by unemployment problems due to the slump in the automotive industry and other industries. The group community resources for women through this spokesperson, Wendy Newberry, says that in our Kitchener-Waterloo area alone hundreds of working women, many employed currently in the insurance industry, are already experiencing the effects of the transition to word processing equipment, from typewriters to electronically-based information systems from manual data processing. She said that she would be happy to ensure the Government receives the report of this group's findings as they become available this spring and that they are particularly eager to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) act upon the recommendations of the Labour Canada report entitled "In the Chips: Opportunities, People, Partnerships," which was submitted to the Minister last Fall by his Department's task force on microelectronics and employment.
In the few moments that remain to me, I want to suggest that this sector, the sector of women, is but one of the sectors and this is but one illustration of the size of the problem in front of us. Already in this debate we have reversed some of the many possibilities that lie open to us. The Government had before it the detailed report of the Science Council of Canada. In that report, after looking at the effects and the economic imperatives of all of this technological change, the needs that we have been talking about for employment strategies, retraining programs, software skills, design systems, co-operative approaches between labour and management, the Council predicted a bleak future if Canada does not act quickly to maintain social and economic stability in the transition to an information society. That report states:
Many sectors of our manufacturing industry would be rendered obsolete, virtually overnight. Our trade balance, already precarious, might never recover. Structural unemployment could lead to permanent joblessness for many Canadians, a decline in living standards and, for some, emigration.
This future can be avoided if action is taken immediately. The Government has had warning, not just for a year but for years and, indeed, through the last decade. This debate is important. Even at this late date there is a requirement for all sectors to come together to agree upon those strategies, and we in presenting this motion do so in order that we can expose to
May 6, 1983

ourselves and to the Canadian public many of the opportunities and alternatives which we would lay before the Canadian public as we look forward to the opportunity of becoming the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members rising to ask questions? The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, you must remember I have probably the easiest riding in Canada to recall and I realized when you were hesitating that you were not going to look up my riding. Most people ask where it is!
Nevertheless, this subject is of great interest to me. The Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) referred to a book that I treat as a bible. It was written in March, 1982 and was put out by the Science Council of Canada entitled "Planning now for an Information Society". I am just pointing out the dangers here because in that book the Science Council shows where it anticipates being between 1985 and 1990 and the year 2000. The Science Council also refers to where we will be in the years 1980 to 1985. Things are happening so quickly. What the Science Council predicted for the years 1980 to 1985 has now occurred, and part of what was anticipated for 19851990 has occurred.
This fine report was produced a little over a year ago. I am not criticizing the report; I am just getting my point across. What I am concerned about is not unemployment as such because that is an over-simplification of the problem. We have a social problem, a serious social problem, because technology will affect every facet of life. Today it is not necessarily taking jobs away from the workers.
I happen to have General Motors close by and part of its operation is in my own riding. I have been through the plant and I have studied what is happening. General Motors has not really reduced the number of employees. The reason General Motors put in robotics and got into high technology was not to reduce employment or cut employment costs but to improve the product and quality. The quality control is far greater when you have automatic welders as compared to humans, with their frailties and weaknesses. It is these frailties and weaknesses that concern me about high technology, not only the unemployed.
I do not believe that because of the baby boom we are going to have the serious unemployment we anticipated, but we are going to have a great deal of time. I do not say leisure time because that is a dangerous term. When you refer back to the days of Rome, it was leisure time that destroyed their society. In any event, we will have time.
One of the things we can do with our time is construct new projects. That would be an interesting use of our time. High technology will provide us with that. It will also provide us with access to information throughout the world, the upgrading of medical information and medical science to keep us healthy. It will give us easier access to stores in order to make purchases. This will be particularly helpful to the handicapped
Supply
who are unable to leave their homes. We will have a great deal of extra time.
A number of times one of my colleagues from British Columbia has talked about farmers who, because of the economy, have had to get an extra job off the farm. They have had to do this in order to maintain their farm, which is their basic interest. The Department of National Revenue is now going through its books and beginning to tax these people on their basic income. That is negative input. We should be developing tax incentives for individuals. Our basic industry was that of being hewers of wood and drawers of water. Those people individually and collectively can develop new technology for growing trees and producing a higher volume of grains. Let us look at corn, for example. Formerly corn could only be grown in the southernmost part of Ontario. It can now be grown in Manitoba. Each farmer who has an enterpreneurial spririt wants to do something along that line. I maintain that what the Department of National Revenue has done to these people is wrong.
With the extra time that will be available, it is very important to develop new skills, products, hybrids, the cross-pollination of different cereal grains and grasses. Therefore, it is very important that we encourage the small farmer. More people will be going back to the land. Through high technology and because there simply will not be as much employment in the manufacturing centres, more people will move into mid-Canada and develop their own interest and industry within that area. We will get away from the megacities which we have created through our material needs. We have to look at what we can do for the farm people through individual efforts. Also, we must look at biotechnology. We are not addressing ourselves to that. It is a very important subject because it may improve the strain of anything that grows. With improved medical science, people will be able to do more with their extra time. It is important that that time be filled.
As I said in question period today, we cannot fill that time with pay television. That is a crutch. We must give people a tool. That is what high technology will do. It will give people access to information. They will have access to debates in this House of Commons going back 20 years. People will have access to information in magazines from around the world. There will be international communication of information. What is going to happen will be exciting, but we have to identify what people are going to do with their time. We cannot call it leisure time or it will have no purpose.
Someone said to me that he can imagine the time when he will work three days a week. He will be able to devote over 50 per cent of his time to what he is interested in and yet retain the same basic income to maintain his standard of living. If that can be spread across the country, imagine how much benefit this country will get from people developing new ideas, new concepts, new methods of harvesting and growing, new forms of energy that we have not yet touched in this country. We keep talking about drilling for oil. We go five miles underground. We go out into the oceans into iceberg alley to

May 6, 1983
Supply
try and find oil. I was told today that in Nova Scotia they can produce almost enough alcohol to replace the oil they bring in from overseas.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: They need that in Nova Scotia.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That type of technology has been developed by individuals in the United States in such places as Kentucky, where they run their tractors on gasohol. We do not have that incentive in this country. This is what we must do.
Giving grants to large corporations is not the answer. We must assist these individuals. Let me give an explanation of grants. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) stated that he is providing larger funding. It usually takes the bureaucrats about a year to decide whether something is a worthwhile subject to be studied. By the time the grant is made, it represents less than 10 per cent of the total cost because usually the project has been completed.
If you really want to help industry in research and development, and that is where you want to put your effort, you should allow these people to remove deferred income tax payable from their financial statement. This would put their statement in a much stronger position. The free enterprise market will then come up with the money. They can borrow debt capital without future income tax on their statement. The Government will not collect it anyway, so why not wipe it off their sheets and allow them to go to the free market to raise funds? That is what industry wants, not grants because they take too long.
I have talked to Walter Light of Northern Telecom many times. He is a Canadian for whom I have the highest respect. He has done one of the most amazing jobs in this country to represent us in the communications field. I do not say he did alone, but he was the leader. He does not need grants. We are talking S700 million over two years. On one project alone, Northern Telecom will be spending $1.2 billion over the next five years. I am bringing high technology up because that is how it should be financed.
Going full circle, it is the individuals we must talk about. It is the potential unemployment that many Members have referred to and, as the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) said, the unemployment of women that we must talk about. Well, Mr. Speaker, this week I spoke to a young lady who happens to work in the United States. Where she works, they have placed terminals in people's homes so that those people who used to come to the office to type now type within their own home. The typing is processed within their own home and printed in the office. We are going to come to that. There is a new book on this subject called "Megatrends" that tells us that in the future we will be taken away from the centre of the city and, perhaps going almost too far, we will all work in our own homes and not go to an office. The only thing that is missing there is the social interchange and the opportunity to discuss things one on one.
I do want to stress that we must deal with the social impact of technology. We must protect the people. Let me talk about structural unemployment, a subject which many people have referred to. Structural unemployment really refers to those people who cannot accept this new technology, people who were raised in an age when they used their hands. We must protect those people. We must assist them to relocate, to retrain, to do whatever is possible to assist them. If that fails, we must assist them to live with dignity. That is something that we are not dealing with.
A person from the age group of 20 to 45 can adapt very quickly to new technology. Some people in their middle years and older have a hard time grasping the new technology. Those are the people that will be seriously hurt. I feel that the youth will be picked up in time because they can go to community colleges and they can gain the knowledge that is needed, but it is the people who cannot do this that we must protect. At this point, the Government has not identified what is to be done about this problem.
About two months ago I talked to two young men who worked for General Motors. I said: "I hope you realize that your children will probably not have the same jobs you have". They replied: "Why is that?" I said: "Have you noticed the new robots in your plant?" They said: "Yes, we think they are wonderful". I said: "Has it not reduced the number of employees required per car manufactured?" They said: "Yes, it has". So I said: "You probably come from a family in Oshawa who came from a generation of people who have worked in the automotive industry". They finally admitted that.
Those older people who work for General Motors will always have a job because they can be taken care of by a large corporation. General Motors has spent a great deal of money re-educating their electrical maintenance people to become electronic maintenance people. At the present time General Motors maintains that there has been no reduction in staff, but they do acknowledge that, as more robots become available, there will be a reduction in staff. However, the management of General Motors still argues with me. The point to be made here is that the necessity of maintaining the new equipment will almost take up the slack by employing the people who used to put the wheels on the cars.
I would like to see the Government address the social problems of high technology. I would like to have the Government allay the fears the people have of losing their jobs. I would like to see the Government provide some incentive for these people to do other things. Perhaps these other things may be the cottage industry, it may be art, it may be a multitude of different things. We must stress the importance of the individual because the machine will take over by doing what individuals have done in the past.
We must encourage individuals to do more on their own. As long as people have a basic job and can make the same income in two and a half to three days a week that they made in five days in the past, then they can be productive Canadians with other interests. The Government will benefit, because if these
May 6, 1983

other interests develop on a commercial basis they would then be taxed by the federal Government.
Basically, the economy is nothing more than a great big machine. Every time the wheel goes around in this machine, the Government takes a dollar from it. The faster the wheel turns, the more dollars the Government gets. This is important because it would assist in reducing the debt load that our children will be carrying. We have gone through trying times and our debt load is very heavy. When the Keynesian theory has been used in good times, there are no funds in reserve available to attack the social problems of high technology during trying times.
I really feel that women in the workplace will always have a place. I feel that women have grown and developed in the last ten years. I personally believe that women can do many of the functions that men do far better than men. There are some things that men can do far better, such as playing baseball and hockey.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: No, I will say that. I maintain that football is a good example of this. I do not think women should participate in body contact sports. That is my own feeling. But there are many jobs in administration and in management that women can do far better than men. There are businesses-


An Hon. Member:: Did you ever get a body check from a woman?


Thomas Scott Fennell: No, I am not saying that. I am being very positive. I am one of the few Members in this House of Commons that has never had a male working on my staff, because I find that a women will work harder.


James Aloysius McGrath: Now you are really in trouble!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I say that because women have done an excellent job. They are a part of our whole society and must be protected. I do not think we need to try to protect women as hard as some people say we do because I think they have the confidence that some men lack.
We must consider older and middle-aged women because they have a problem. I referred to that previously when I said that some General Motors' employees are moving into this structural unemployed group. The younger women in the country are now aggressive, forceful and are making their way. They are not being relegated to clerical jobs; they are being given administrative jobs. I have a daughter aged 22 who has no intention of being a clerk. She is going to run the show. That is good because now women know that they can run the show, and there is the opportunity for them to do so.
I would like to go back, Mr. Speaker, to a subject that I feel very strongly about, and that is the disabled. I believe that the technology we have developed will be of great benefit to the disabled. I am not talking about the machines, I am talking about the use of that technology. If we use the technology, we will accomplish something. If we only use the machines, we will be back in the dark ages again. Machine intelligence will
Supply
remove labour, but it is an advantage that we must develop ourselves. By developing the technology ourselves and by training the citizens of this country, we will become selfsufficient and a better country, a more productive country, a more entrepreneurial country. We will create finer people that have interests other than sitting in front of a television set watching Pay-TV.


Mr. Ogle:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) for his grasp of the major problem that technology will bring about in the human dimension. In light of what he has told us, I think it is important to go back and look at other periods of time in which the same kind of maximum shift occurred to see what is necessary to retain from the former style of life and what is no longer necessary to retain.
I think an example of this is the steamship industry. Although I am a prairie boy and have never been in close proximity to ships, I have always been fascinated by boats and ships on the oceans. As I have travelled around the world I have seen all of the different shapes and styles of sailing ships.
I think it took about 8,000 years to develop a four-masted clipper that could go to any part of the world. I have often wondered what the people who sailed on the clippers thought when they first saw a steamship. It had taken 8,000 years to make this machine of wood, cloth, steel and whatever was necessary. Then someone came along with the steamboat, and the clipper might as well have been 3,000 years old. People who sailed clippers had something to offer those who sailed steamships. They had the experience of the seas. They knew the tides, they knew how to navigate and they knew how to dock. They had an abundance of experience which was beneficial to those who operated steamboats. Perhaps they could not make the transition into the steamboat era, but nevertheless they had something to leave with steamboat operators.
I would like to indicate one problem to the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) which could be brought about by the new technology. It could be difficult to retain the old values which I think are important in society, such as the human values. When we look at technological change and education, how to use a computer or how to work a new machine, perhaps many of the elements which hold society together will be forgotten. How will the human, ethical or moral dimension be carried on as we go through this new wave of development?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in boating. For example, I was always a traditionalist who believed that a wooden boat sailed better. In fact it did. It took many years for fibreglas to catch up or sail with as even a keel as a wooden boat. That was new technology, that was new development; but I happen to prefer a wooden canoe because they still have not perfected the fibreglas canoe to ride fast waters as well as a wooden canoe.

May 6, 1983
Supply
I was referring to bringing back the nuclear family and holding it together. We must allow people to do things together. For instance, they could have small plots of land to produce their own vegetables. They could return to the use of cold cellars in which to keep their roots throughout the winter. We should encourage families to do things together, not with the machine but because of the machine. People will have more time to attend church. People should be encouraged through the church to get back together. We should try to encourage the voluntary organizations of society to get together. They will have the time. We do not need Government grants for that sector. We need accelerated tax credits for those organizations.
In my opinion the family has fallen apart, and recent statistics show this. If there is any way with the development of this new technology that we could improve family ties, then we will have accomplished something really worth while.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) relates to how he sees society compensating individuals. The recent report shows an additional two million unemployed and perhaps a total of four million. We will actually have a smaller work force when the new technology takes over. How can society compensate individuals? In the past it has been by people having jobs and putting in their hours. Then we had the unemployment safety network, disability pensions and so on. How can society compensate the ordinary individual who cannot work because there are no jobs?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is trying to take me one step too quickly. We must have a broader base of interest because there may be two people doing the job of one person today. For example, a person who works three days a week will have the chance to develop other skills. He may move on to those skills and drop the skills that he used in the past. We must develop a broader spectrum of skills for all society.
We can never drop back on Unemployment Insurance or social security. We must encompass the entire spectrum but we must bring back personal initiative by creating new jobs and giving tax credits so that individuals have the freedom to do what they want. It will no longer be a society centred around the manufacturing base.
I cannot really answer the Hon. Member's question in a few words. We have to develop in such a way that people are given a feeling of fulfilment. This is really what I am shooting for. As the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) pointed out, it is important to bring back the nuclear family. That is one of the goals. Then families could do together the things they used to do, as they did on sailing vessels and on small farms.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, the question of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) was an extremely important one in the whole change or shift in the wave of technology. It is important for society to look at the way families and individuals were actually cared for as each wave
went ahead. In the pre-industrial age the family group was looked at in one way. Prior to that tribal societies were looked at in another way. It was only in the industrial age that the income one would receive from a job became a way to look after a family.
As more and more people do not have jobs-and I do not have the exact answer-a distribution system will have to be found so that everyone will have enough on which to live even though they do not necessarily gain it from a job. Perhaps the definition of a job will have to be changed drastically from the one we now use, as a place to go and spend eight hours. I do not think we have arrived at the answers, but I thank the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills for pointing to a key question in this debate.


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in joining this debate let me indicate first that a year or two ago we would not have heard any discussion in the House concerning the technological revolution despite the fact that it had been taking place for approximately ten years. The Japanese have been very involved in studying the technological revolution and indicated their formal investigation and research into the matter in the Mitsubi Report of 1973. This is one of the reasons the Japanese in the 1970s became one of the dominant economies of the world.
As many Hon. Members have pointed out, we are in a very historical period. We are entering the third industrial revolution. As an NDP Member pointed out, the first industrial revolution occurred when we went from an agricultural society to a society of steam engines, an industrial society, at which point 90 per cent of Canadians working in the agricultural sector lost their jobs. Those people who lost their jobs on farms went on to gain new jobs in the cities. These were jobs in the manufacturing sector or in industry in general. If we could put ourselves back into that time when Canadian society and the world society were basically agricultural, we could again sit here and be frightened about the prospects of job displacement or the fact that 90 per cent of the jobs would be displaced; or we could look with imagination at and accept the challenges ahead of us, move on and take advantage of the tremendous productivity increase and wealth generation that takes place in an industrial revolution. We have experienced this in the two previous industrial revolutions with the steam engine and then with the combustion engine.
One of the first things we must overcome as Canadians is resistance to the technological revolution. This can be found in Governments, in business, in labour and consumers. The dramatic changes which have been occurring are indeed frightening.
I would like to go from the general to the more specific because, as we attain knowledge and take a closer look, the fear diminishes. One of the biggest problems associated with the industrial revolution, without question, is job displacement
May 6, 1983

and unemployment. We are hearing these days a lot of rhetorical questions and answers, seeking political points in Question Period, about the unemployment situation. Yet I believe most Hon. Members of Parliament, when they are not in the House, recognize that the majority of this unemployment is structural and is due to the technological revolution, and the best way we can handle it is with a concerted, co-operative effort.
We have to deal with some pretty thorny issues and I am going to take the first one head-on; that is, the deficit. I do not know how we can choose a Prime Minister, a Member of Parliament or a provincial legislator and not consider what this person's views are on the deficit. It has become very much a political question. The deficit is increasing, Government spending is increasing, let us have a return to the right, a return to "small c" conservatism. But how will that impact on our response to the technological revolution?
Hon. Members opposite stand up and say we need further tax incentives for research and development; that we cannot destroy our social security system or our Unemployment Insurance system; that we must have more job training, as the Conservative speakers have all indicated; that we must have more retraining; that we must maintain our educational system; that we must maintain one of our most valuable resources, which is not oil but our human resources, by the best health care system in the world. The importance of a healthy population in an industrial revolution is unquestionable, but often times overlooked. However, just the areas which I have outlined now account for well over 70 per cent of the deficit.
So we must deal with the situation of the deficit. Is our deficit something for which we must sacrifice the many programs which all Hon. Members are saying we need to respond to the technical revolution? Or must we put some different perspective on it?
Let us look back at what the deficits were compared to the GNP in the United States and Canada when the first industrial revolution was going on and when the second industrial revolution was going on. Were there massive increases in investment? Were there higher Government deficits and higher business deficits in order to adapt and to modernize the industries in the first and the second industrial revolution? Did that occur? Yes, it did. And if Hon. Members look back at the records they will see that this is the case.
This is also linked with the question of productivity. We have all heard how badly Canada is doing in terms of productivity, if you listen to much of the media or many of the Opposition Members. Quite frankly, that is not the case. We are one of the top five nations in the world in productivity. It is true, however-and I see an Hon. Member shaking his head- that our rate of increase in productivity has been diminishing. This, Mr. Speaker, is something we must address and which this Government has been addressing, particularly in the last budget.
If we look over the medium and long term, we know that with a technological revolution there is a productivity multiplier effect. There is also a wealth generating effect. One of the first problems we must address is how to redistribute this
Supply
wealth in such a way that those workers who have lost their jobs in the more traditional industries are able to obtain retraining in the new kinds of industries which will develop with the technological revolution.
That is not just a pious hope, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what the Japanese have done. I do not think we can point out often enough that the Japanese have gone through a major portion of a technological revolution without a dramatic increase in unemployment. I believe their unemployment rate is at about 2.9 per cent now. This is not because they have some hidden magic or because they are of a different culture; it is because the Japanese were aware of what was going on when they automated their automobile factories with robotics. They took the workers who were displaced and retrained them for other areas, whether in service, management or marketing, so that they did not have a rapid increase in unemployment. Perhaps they had a better opportunity to do this in their society because it is not quite as pluralistic a society as ours, and it is not quite so free a society as ours. We must face the fact that in Canada we have a number of disadvantages in terms of two levels of Government, a federal and a provincial Government.


Walter David Baker: We cannot avoid that.


Peter Joseph Lang: As the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, we cannot avoid that. But what we can do is make sure, through the political will of all of us, that our politicians and our Governments are working in a co-operative manner. And there have been some signs of that, Mr. Speaker. I was very encouraged to note that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) presented his budget, the Treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Frank Millier, indicated that when he brought down his own budget it would be along the same lines, stressing tax incentives for the private sector to enable it to adapt to the technological revolution and to create jobs. I believe that was a very positive note because this was a co-operative effort by different political Parties involved in two different levels of Government.
Another reality which we must face in Canada is the fact that we have for at least 100 years operated on the confrontational or adversarial system, not only in our Governments but between the main economic players in our society. It is not new to say that labour, management, business, Government, all have operated on an adversarial-confrontational system, and it has worked pretty well. However, we can no longer go on in this fashion, Mr. Speaker, or we will be left behind, particularly since we are a competitive trading nation and one-third of our GNP depends upon trade.
What are some of the things which Governments, business, and labour can do? First, if the priority is still "We are going to get as much money as we can without regard to productivity increases, without regard to the viability of the company", then that adversarial position will not be of benefit to labour in negotiating contracts. However, if labour says: "What we really want now is job security, job retraining; these are the

May 6, 1983
Supply
things we are going to bargain for and any increase in wages will be based on increased productivity", then labour will be striking a very positive note.
However, if this does not occur, we already know what will happen. We will have increased unemployment as businesses, particularly multinationals, are able to lay off workers in Canada and use the goods produced by workers who are willing to work for cheaper wages in other countries in the world, particularly in the Third World and in the developing countries.
What about business? Well, business can make a contribution as well. Many businessmen are saying in their interventions that the biggest thing they can take on is innovation of new products, adopting new marketing strategies, the developing of new markets as we come out of the recession. They can take the responsibility of helping to increase productivity through modernization and not blame lack of productivity on labour unions. In short, a co-operative effort.
I have seen this occur in my riding, Mr. Speaker, under the ILAP Program, where industry, labour and Government work together not only to modernize plants but to expand them. The Government's contribution was simply to offer interest-free loans for 50 per cent of capital expenditures for expansion and modernization in the manufacturing and processing field. With that incentive, the business and labour leaders in the Kitchen-er-Waterloo area formed a local ILAP committee and assessed various projects which came forward from both business and labour. We had dramatic increases in the number of jobs created and we had 16 plants modernize or expand in the space of one year. We are looking forward to more so as to increase the number of jobs.
There are other social consequences of the technological revolution apart from job displacement which have been alluded to by other Members. I am thinking of biotechnology where various strains of bacteria produce insulin, or other such genetic manipulation. What are some of the social consequences? Some people fear that these bacteria will get out of control. There might be an accident in the laboratory and a strain of bacteria is developed which is infectious to human beings. Government's responsibility here is to set down certain regulations and guidelines in co-operation with the scientific community so that people can be reasured that with this rapidly changing technology, as with others, we are not endangering the health and safety of our population.
Another example of the social consequences of the technological revolution is a very general one and it comes about so gradually that we may tend to miss it. There is a dramatic increase in stress which we all as individuals feel in a rapidly changing society. There is no question, as Dr. Hans Selye, world renowned expert on stress and a Canadian, has indicated, that the major stress inducing factor is change. We have a rapidly changing society and that will continue with the technological revolution. What is Government's responsibility
here? I think we as representatives of the people must first of all recognize the problem.
Secondly, we should not be so hesitant and concerned when we see jobs in the service sector increasing. This is probably what should be occurring. Stress has a myriad of effects on people, anything from psychosomatic illness such as ulcers to social illnesses. I am thinking of alcoholism, drug addiction, and abuse of various chemicals which we take for granted in our society, such as coffee. Drinking one or two cups of coffee a day is fine, but when we begin drinking seven, eight, nine or ten cups of coffee a day as we adapt to increasing stress, it has a dramatic effect on some of us. People are becoming aware of the problems resulting from too much caffeine. The point I want to make is that there is an increasing amount of stress brought on by technological change.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by addressing the particulars of the Opposition motion which says the Government is not spending enough on R and D. I take exception to this. I point out to the Opposition that if we stress R and D expenditure as the major aspect of the technological revolution, we are missing the boat. For example, there is no evidence that increased R and D expenditures in the areas of the natural or applied sciences will be the be-all and end-all solution. If we look at the way the Japanese have adapted to the technological revolution, they have used a system of adaption and innovation of existing products. We have seen them do this with many industries where the United States was ahead 20 years ago and the Japanese have come in, taken a look at the products, adapted and moved ahead.
I see you are rising, Mr. Speaker; thank you.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would repeat that bit about the coffee. I do not quite understand that.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was making the point that as stress increases in society due to rapid change, many people will use various means to deal with it. Some people will smoke, some will drink, some will use valium, some will increase their use of such normal things as coffee to the point where they are not healthy. For example, if someone is drinking one or two cups a day of coffee, well, there is a dramatic difference between that person's intake and someone drinking 16 cups per day. That has a dramatic impact on the central nervous system. It shows itself in tension, irritability, sometimes there are gastro-intestinal side effects. I could go but 1 do not think the Hon. Member wants me to give a lecture on the side effects of coffee.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in having the Parliamentary Secretary give us his views as to how he thinks society should compensate people under the assumption that there are going to be four million or five million unemployed and there simply are not going to be jobs available for them. The traditional way of life is to work and be paid a salary. Is the Hon. Member thinking in terms of negative income tax, or what would his view be?
May 6, 1983


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Hon. Member was not present for the first part of my speech but this is one of the important points I was trying to bring home. In the first two industrial revolutions there was dramatic job displacement. We went from an agricultural society to a steam engine society to a combustion engine society. We lost 80 per cent of the jobs in the agricultural sector. However, those jobs were then replaced by new jobs in factories. The automobile industry was a new sector where jobs were created. Much of this could not have been imagined when the first and second industrial revolutions started.
Therefore, one of the points I was trying to stress was that jobs will be coming along with the new technologies which are being developed. Our job is not so much to be frightened, to panic and to look for spurious ways of dealing with it, but, rather, to go with the technological revolution and retrain in those new, emerging industries as they come forward.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lang) said. I am just wondering if he could tell me whether he is aware that with regard to high technology there is a very great regional disparity. There are the high-tech centres of the various parts of the country where the young people are very much aware of the potential, and they also have the opportunity to participate in the types of programs which are available. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the great regional disparity and, if so, can he tell us what types of plans his Government has to ensure that people from rural and northern areas are able to participate in the information revolution that we are experiencing in this country?


Peter Joseph Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the regional disparities existing in Canada. They have been existing here ever since this great country was put together in Confederation.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is not so.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker-


James Aloysius McGrath: That shows an ignorance of Canadian history.


Peter Joseph Lang: -the Government has been aware of this problem. For quite a number of years, the Government has had the Department of DREE, which has now been merged with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to deal with that specific problem, even before the technological revolution occurred.
However, I think the point made by the Hon. Member is a very good one. The factor involving regional disparities is certainly one which Governments at both the federal and provincial levels must recognize in their policies. Our Government is cognizant of the problem, as indicated by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) with his announcement in the House of a new program dealing with
Supply
regional disparities. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce sufficiently outlined it in his speech. I will not try to encapsulate it in a response to the Hon. Member's question.


Laverne Lewycky: I am not asking for a summary of the Minister's speech, but I would like to know if there are specific ways in which the Government will be including people from rural and northern areas. For example, the Canada Tomorrow Conference was discussed. Will there be people from northern Indian reserves and from rural western and northern Canada participating in this type of conference so that they might become aware of some of the present possibilities in the high-tech cocoon? People outside of the cocoon are not as exposed to such possibilities. I am just wondering if the Hon. Member could indicate some specific plans of the Government to ensure that these parts of Canada are included.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, to be quite straightforward concerning the specific conference mentioned by the Hon. Member, the Canada Tomorrow Conference, I do not know of the detailed plans or of the accessibility to be afforded to people from various rural and urban regions to attend the conference. I do know that the Government considers it to be a very high priority that all Canadians be aware of the technological revolution which is occurring and aware of the part that we must all play in it, as I have outlined in my speech.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Conservative Party brought forth the motion today concerning the lack of research and development in this country. I think that all one must do is consider the statistics and compare Canada with other countries around the world to see that we, as a nation, have really fallen down in terms of spending money on research and development and thus ensuring that we keep up with the rest of the world.
We have spoken at length today about the transition from the industrial society to the information society. I wish to begin my remarks by saying that I am glad there is a growing realization among Hon. Members in the House that we are in the new society, in the age of the computer, that things have really changed. Whether we like it or not, we are now here and we cannot turn back the clock. Unfortunately, one still hears Hon. Members of different political parties pretending that we will go back to the good old days, but that will not happen.
If one wishes to consider what is happening in Canada today or Canada tomorrow, all one must do is look at one's own children. For example, in our case, my wife and 1 have a nine year old boy. A few weeks ago our television went on the blink. My wife works in the television field and she and I tried to repair it. We tried to adjust it and spent a great deal of time, but we could not do it. Our nine year old boy, Jason, said: "Daddy, you are stupid; let me try".


Dave Nickerson: He's got it right.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He has it right. I was about to take it into a television repair shop. After 15 minutes, at the age of nine,

May 6, 1983
Supply
with no training whatsoever, my son fixed it and it still works perfectly well. I have also seen my nine year old son sit down with electronic games, take them apart and put them back together. I really felt old a few days ago, and I just turned 37 about a week or so ago-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: when he said to me: "Daddy, what were things like in the olden days when you were in school?"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Your wife looks so young!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We did not have the Pac-Man, the Atari, the Intellevision, or any of the computer games which are so normal and natural today. I suppose I must conclude that the olden days when I went to school, in the 1960s, will seem much more ancient and old to my son when he reaches my age than it seems to me when I consider the time when my father went to school, in the 1920s and 1930s.
This is because we are going through a society of very rapid change. That is the real world out there, and I think this nation must realize it. The nation will have to change its economic and social priorities to try to accommodate and mould that reality so that the transition is a human one with human values to guide us and not just cold, harsh, technical values. What is happening to my nine year old is the real world of other nine years olds and ten year olds as well.
A few years ago we never heard of computer camps in the summer, did we? But now there are computer camps for schools. There are children lined up who want to learn more about computers. Instead of typing classes, we now have keypunching classes and others of that sort. That is the real world we are in.
The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) spoke very well. I think we must consider the new society as being one which can give us some more hope as human beings, one concerning which we can take a very optomistic point of view, and one which can really be used to liberate human beings from some of the drudgery and work which we have had to do ever since civilization began. That must be the goal and the objective.
At the same time, I think that we must be aware of some of the realities of what is happening. Many of the jobs with which we have been familiar are not there any longer and will not be there in the future. We must ensure that we start retraining people in this country as they are being retrained in other countries around the world so that they are not the victims of technological change. Instead of being its victims, they should be the people who benefit from technological change.
I want to review a few things that are happening in the real world. In the United States, for example, only 3 per cent of the people now work in farming as farmers. Only 13 per cent of Americans now work as blue collars workers in manufacturing plants. Sixty per cent of North Americans work in the information society. Be they teachers, lawyers, accountants, people working in high-tech or with computers, software, hardware or
microelectronics, those Americans working in the so-called information society amount to 60 per cent of the population, with only 13 per cent in manufacturing and 3 per cent in agriculture. The 13 per cent in manufacturing will not increase, no matter which political party is in power, but, rather, will decrease in all industrialized countries around the world. It will decrease the same as it did in agriculture a number of years ago.
My father and my grandfathers before him were farmers in the prairies. In those days, there was a farmer on every quarter section of land on the prairies. I remember the stories that I was told as a child when the farmers would have huge crews of 20 or 30 men at threshing time who would use threshing machines and hay racks. The stooking crews would thrash the grain. Today, that is done by one person with a combine. About 120 years ago approximately 60 per cent of North Americans were working on farms and in agriculture. Today that number is 3 per cent but those 3 per cent produce more than the 60 per cent did some 100 years ago.
The same thing is happening now in manufacturing, mining and many other resource and other industries which have employed so many people over the years. In fact, that change began long ago in 1956. That was the first year that the United States had more people employed in white collar jobs than blue collar jobs. That was almost 30 years ago. When the Russians launched the first Sputnik satellite that orbited the world in 1957, it was a sensational way of opening up the world to the information society.
I believe we are undergoing very rapid changes. I have three deep and genuine concerns about what we should be doing as policy-makers in light of this reality. First, the Science Council of Canada said as recently as two days ago that our country is not keeping up with other countries in the world in terms of advanced technology, equipment, machinery and devices. The Council has said that we are about five years behind smaller countries in western Europe. That is half of a decade, which is far more significant than 30 or 40 years ago. We were told that we are spending less on R and D than other less industrialized countries. While we will be spending $700 million on advanced technology over the next two years, other countries such as France, Germany, Britain and the Scandinavian countries are spending billions of dollars.
We should also be aware of the fact that Canada is already far behind in terms of our trade deficit in high technology. In 1982 our net trade deficit was $8 billion in high technology. Many of the computers and office equipment that we import from abroad could be produced here in Canada. We do not produce the silicon chip in Canada even though we use so many of them every day in our nation. In fact, when one speaks to those in the computer industry they will say that if we do not change our ways our trade deficit in computers alone by 1990 will be some $10 billion in Canada. Imagine the
May 6, 1983

loss of jobs, wealth and economic activity that this means to Canadians, particularly young people who are fully capable of being trained in this country to build chips, computers and other microelectronic equipment that we are and will be using in Canada.
Today, our society is one in which soon every child will have a computer on his desk in every classroom in the country, but we will be importing those computers from abroad. That shows a lack of foresight and planning and is a disgrace to a country as talented as ours.
A second concern I have is that of the little high technology industry that does exist in this country, 40 per cent is already foreign owned and controlled. Many Canadian firms are now very vulnerable to foreign takeovers. Whatever industry we do have in Canada will end up like the oil industry today, being foreign owned, if we do not take appropriate action. The situation may even be worse since there will not be branch plants in the country. Instead we will be importing all of the high-tech equipment for our country's use. We must become aware of these realities as a nation and have some vision and confidence.
I am also concerned about the transition from our industrial society to our information society and how it affects so many people by unemployment. While I do not believe anyone has all the answers, one solution is obviously retraining. Perhaps we will move into a society in which we will continue to have shorter work weeks. We began some years ago with a 65-hour work week and we are now down to 40-hour work weeks. Perhaps there will be 15 or 20-hour work weeks in our society 50 years from now and we will have five or six weeks of holidays instead of three or four weeks. The Government of Francis Mitterrand is now experimenting with shortening the work week from 40 hours to 35 hours.


An Hon. Member:: There is no work in France. That is what happens with socialism.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Suddenly my Conservative friends get very upset. They are afraid to look at any new and different ideas. I suggest that they will have to consider the possibility of continuing to shorten the work day or work week and increasing the holiday time in the years ahead. I say that because many of the jobs today will disappear and we will have to take care of those displaced people fairly and equally, whether my friends in the Liberal Party like it or not.
Let me use the automobile industry as an example. Last September, I had the opportunity to speak in Chicago to the United Auto Workers. The director of research of the American United Auto Workers told the convention that even if the United States retrieved its full share of auto production from the Japanese and others, only 17 years from now, in the year 2000, 80 per cent of the jobs that existed in the booming 1970s will have disappeared because of robotics and the fully automated factory.
There are now automobile factories in Japan in which 98 per cent of the operation is robotized. The average time for producing a car in Japan is some 11 hours, while it is some 31 hours in the United States. Robots in Japan are now producing cars in nine hours. The cost in terms of robots is about $5 an
Supply
hour, whereas in terms of human labour the cost is $15 an hour for salary and benefits. This is the reality. As legislators we will have to consider ways to retrain workers who are displaced rather than letting them simply draw Unemployment Insurance or go on welfare. That is the challenge we face and we must ensure that the ordinary people are not the victims of the robots.
We are heading toward a robotized society in the world. The Japanese now have plants in which robots are building robots. In fact, in a machine plant just outside of Tokyo there are robots working the nightshift with only one human in the plant, the night watchman. That is the type of society that is evolving in our world.
I strongly suggest that we begin to retrain our people and put more money into upgrading their skills and preparing them for the world of today and tomorrow. The Japanese have 40 times as many young people in electrical engineering schools as we do in Canada and Japan has five times our population. Other countries such as Germany, France, Austria and Scandinavian countries put more emphasis on retraining than we do in Canada, and as a result the unemployment rate is lower and the standard of living is higher.
I believe that today's society also causes us to raise many questions about the direction in which our country is headed. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) raised the question of our human values and the concept of our moral issues in terms of the machine and human beings. I think they were very good questions. We are moving into a society where many of the things we took for granted years ago, such as the value of physical labour and the value of capital, are being challenged. We are now entering into a society in which perhaps information is more important and brain intensive industries will be more important, where the knowledge that one possesses will be key in determining whether an industry is efficient or productive. I think a lot of the theories we had in the past are now being challenged.
It is important in this new revolution that we maintain very human values of sharing, co-operating and building and that we use high technology and new innovations to liberate people to make sure that we are not the slaves of the robot, that we make the robot work for us. We should make sure that we use technology to eliminate jobs that are dangerous in terms of health and safety and eliminate jobs that are jobs of drudgery. We should use the new technology to increase our productivity so that we will have more wealth to go around, to give human beings more free time and time to do work in the human and social field than has been done in the past. If we do that, then we can create a society that is better and more decent in the years that lie ahead.
Because of the new technologies we have a chance to have a more decentralized or a more democratic society as well. It will be a more flexible society. We should try to use these new

May 6, 1983
Supply
tools to make sure that does happen and we do not continue building bigger and bigger cities that are more and more polluted. Nor should we continue building more and more expressways. Instead we should have a more balanced growth in our society and promote more self-reliance, encourage more economic democracy, so that the ordinary people have more say over their lives and their environment than has been the case in the past.
I do think these are some of the things that can be accomplished. These are some of the things that we will have to think seriously about as legislators.
I have tried to raise a number of questions this afternoon. I do not know what the answers are to many of the issues we have been discussing today. I do think the values and objectives of a humane and decent society must remain. We must use the new technology, the robots and computers, to enhance that humaneness and decency and to try to increase the standard of living of the poor and the dispossessed. If we can do that, then surely the world of the twenty-first century can be a lot more just and exciting than the world we are experiencing right now.
[ Translation]


Mr. Lachance:: First of all, Madam Speaker, I should like to say that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has just described very adequately the problems resulting from the introduction of robotics in the '80s. He compared this problem with the dilemma Western societies were faced with after the war due to automation which replaced a labour force which was unable to adjust. He mentioned also the need to retrain and upgrade the skills of our labour force. Would he not agree with me, however-I think I gathered from his remarks that he favours the development of higher-technology and robotics-when I say that in the long run, according to the experts, robots will create new jobs, just as automation did. However, in the short run, we will be faced with a rather serious unemployment situation which will affect especially the non-skilled workers who, no matter what program we may implement, will be displaced by robots. This will create in our society a fairly high level of unemployment which will add to the unemployment with which we are already faced today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) like to reply to the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance)?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes Mr. Speaker.
I have been an optimist for a long time. I believe that in the long run, there will be more jobs available in Canada, provided we establish a high technology development policy. Last year, unfortunately, for lack of such a policy, we had an international trade deficit of approximately $8 billion in the field of high technology and several countries have now out distanced us. I
for one believe that there will be an increasing reliance on computers in schools for example as well as in all sectors of society.
I just read an article by an American economist which stated that by 1985, 75 per cent of all jobs in North America will require the use of a computer.
In my opinion, it makes a lot of sense to have a high technology sector in Canada. It is crucial that we in Canada manufacture computers and all the goods that we need in this country. It is very important in order to avoid relying too often on imports.
The problem must be addressed immediately. We have to cope with the transition from today's world to the society in which we will line 15 or 20 years from now. That is the issue and I believe that the challenge for us, as members of Parliament, is to find a way, through retraining programs like those in Japan or in European countries to provide new jobs for Canadians.


Claude-André Lachance: In his intervention, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) described some of the difficulties experienced by Governments which are literally assaulted by the great many calls for help from declining industries in a world of high technology. Given our limited budgetary resources, I would like to ask him to what extent he is suggesting that we, as a Government and as elected Members, help high technology industries-which will necessarily reduce our assistance to declining industries-and what will be the impact in terms of unemployment and jobs in those lagging industries which are generally rather labour intensive.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is a very thorny and very important issue.
I think that Canada can have a lot of economic changes. We have spent quite a bit of money to build the F-18, for instance, and a lot more as well for useless things. I would suggest that we must do as many other countries of the world have done, including Japan, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Scandinavian countries, and that is spend more money on high technology. Recently I called upon Dr. Stuart Smith, the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada, a Government of Canada agency. He often says that many other countries are now ahead of Canada. He also says that, according to the percentage of our GNP, we have spent much less in Canada than many other countries have and that we will have to change our priorities.
That is why the standard of living in Canada has been dropping since 1960 when we ranked second in the world, whereas we are now no higher than 18th or 19th. That is why we have to review our economic priorities. We need an economic strategy for the future.
May 6, 1983


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). He outlined how much more efficient Japan is compared to the U.S.A.; for example, building a car in 11 hours compared to 31. Would the Hon. Member agree with me that the decision of our Government and the U.S. Government in the early 1970s to hold down the price of world energy was a dramatic interference in the world marketplace and that it actually affected us adversely in the sense that we held down the oil price, which sent a signal to our automobile manufacturers to continue to build big cars for us to buy? Meanwhile in Germany and Japan where they had to go to the world price on energy, they immediately turned their top scientific engineers toward producing more efficient cars. Some eight or ten years later they are beating us in the marketplace. Does the Hon. Member agree that that decision by Government interfered with the marketplace to such an extent that it has made our automotive industry out of date today?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that may have been one of the factors, but there are many factors why the North American auto industry is behind the auto industry in Japan and Europe. Management in general in North America, in private corporations, tends to be shortsighted. There is too much emphasis on quarterly and annual profits rather than long-term planning. Also, in Europe and Japan greater priority is given to quality products rather than quantity. That is the major difference in the business community between North America, the Japanese and Europeans. The Europeans and Japanese are more concerned with the long term. They might have some short-term losses, but in the long run they want to ensure that they are internationally more competitive.
Our management is very shortsighted. Productivity is basically a management problem. It is management that makes important decisions about technological change or whether to expand certain industries. In North America we tend to have become caught up in the consumer process. We build more and more shopping centres, have more and more kinds of dog food and do more and more things that are basically useless. They do not make that mistake as much in Europe and Japan.
When it comes to research and development the Americans spend a bit more than the Japanese, but not much more. The big difference is that Americans spend about half of their research and development funds on military research and development while the Japanese spend almost zero.
It is very difficult to answer the question directly. It is like comparing apples and oranges. There are many cultural differences. I am being honest; I am not trying to skate away from what the Hon. Member is asking. There are many cultural differences. There are many things we can learn from them about quality of life rather than quantity. Because of the world recession and the fact that some of our resources are running out, hopefully we will put more emphasis on human values.
Supply


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the Hon. Member on to a further discussion on which I would like his views. Why does he think that in Canada we hold ourselves back from participating in the world game?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There really is not time for a prolonged question and answer.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, it is the quality of the interventions this afternoon to which I had the fortune of listening that prompts me to seek the floor. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity. I want to present a few thoughts dealing with the subject matter. Before doing that I want to focus attention on the motion before us today.
The motion is written in a political environment. Therefore, it would hardly be possible for the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not often dispute the Chair's calling of the Orders of the Day, but on this Official Opposition day, there are now more Liberal speakers who will have spoken before the end of the day-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I wonder if he would care to count again. At one sequence earlier today, there were two Members of his Party consecutively.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, a motion written in a political environment could hardly praise the Government for what it does. Otherwise, the Opposition would be remiss in its duty. The motion tends to ignore certain developments and initiatives taken by the Government that ought to be put on the record.
The motion seems to indicate that the Government has not dealt with research and development and specialized training. The question of research and development was put forward as recently as three weeks ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his budget. This was done quite forcefully with substantial measures aimed at promoting, facilitating and creating incentives for the private sector with regard to research and development. That was only three weeks ago. That element ought to have had at least a minimum of recognition in the Hon. Member's motion.
Moving on to specialized training, the motion seems to have been written in a vacuum. For the past ten months this country has been engaged in a massive program of adult training under the auspices of the National Training Act and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). That is an outstanding shortcoming of the motion of the Hon. Member for St. John's East. As I said before, he cannot put forward a motion praising the Government, but by going to the extent of condemning the Government for not having done that which it evidently has done is an approach that is not conducive to putting the facts on the record; perhaps it does elicit a reaction from the Government side of the kind I am providing.

May 6, 1983
Supply
Having said that, I congratulate the Hon. Member for St. John's East. In a highly political way he has put an important issue on the table. He deserves to be commended for that initiative. His initiative has led to some interesting and thoughtful interventions this afternoon. We had input from the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang), the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and others. Their comments will be of guidance to the policymakers of this country as to how to approach the question of technological change.
With the inevitable fear that the issue of technological change is creating among Canadians, it would be worthwhile to put on record a quotation that dates back to 1931. The then Director of the International Labour Organization stated that one of the factors in the unemployment program at that time was "the disorganization of the labour market caused by the extra rapid development of labour-saving machinery and the process of rationalization".
We all have to realize the effect of the new processes on the labour market in the eighties which are vastly greater than they were in the thirties. In 1931, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Director at the Internationl Labour Organization reported, in his evidence of the effects of mechanical improvements on employment, that the agricultural combine deprives five agricultural workers of employment, In Canada the number of such combines increased from two in 1922 to some 7,215 in 1929. In that way a displacement of some 36,000 workers took place over a period of seven years. I doubt, however, whether in the 1980s we will have as much breathing space available as was available in the twenties.
The technological revolution that we are debating here today seems to be embodied in the miniaturized computer which has introduced into the industrial process an element of automation. The problem facing us is not a question of whether the process is good or bad; it is how we handle the process, how we manage it.
It seems to me that the Hon. Member from Yorkton-Melville, in his intervention, put his finger on what seems to me to be the essence of the approach that should be developed. That is that we must consider the effect of technological change on employment, on income distribution, on health and safety, and on labour relations. We can learn how to manage these effects by putting a human face on technological change. If at the center of our concern are the men and women affected by the change, then I believe we will have learned from the agricultural and industrial revolution of past decades and we will have learned the important lessons that those changes taught us to the benefit of present and future generations. This seems to me to be the essence of what this debate is all about.
In 1982 we established a task force on microelectronics and employment. It was conducted by Dr. Margaret Fulton and was completed last November. It was produced in the form of a very concise report entitled "In the CHIPS: Opportunities for Employment". Since then it has been the object of intense consultations with labour and management, because, of course,
the recommendations contained therein touch on these facets of technological change.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that this technological change will affect the pattern of demand for labour. It will probably produce a surplus of unskilled workers and a shortage of skilled workers. It will create a necessity for training of the specialized kind that there is presently under the National Training Act and to which the motion before us makes reference. It will probably have an effect on workers in the service industry, and particularly, I suppose, on office workers. Technological change will probably have an effect on hours of work, on part-time work, on work sharing, and perhaps it will have a considerable effect on the question of early retirement and ways of inducing it and facilitating it for those who wish to take advantage of such possibilities.
On the side of health and safety, Mr. Speaker, technological change could also bring about new hazards, possibly with a greater influence on psychological problems. Therefore, the dangers of technological change in relation to health and safety may not be as evident as they were in the past and it will require greater research to prevent their occurrence.
I would like to express my gratitude to the Member from St. John's East because he has put on the table perhaps the most important issue that faces not only this Government but any Government that has an industrial concern and a labour force that is affected by technological change. This issue is that there will probably have to be greater flexibility in the future on the part of management and labour and that there will have to be some form of partnership developed between labour, management and Governments in the future. It is quite possible that management will have to give up more of its residual rights, become more democratic and encourage forms of co-determination and co-management. We have heard echoes of this from other countries in the past decade and these echoes are now reaching our shores. Maybe labour will have to be reassured so that it can accept the inevitable change. The assurance that should be given to labour is the assurance of some form of job security and employment growth.
This leads me to refer to the budget again as I did a moment ago, because contained in the budget is an important element which some speakers on the opposite side have seemed to overlook, although not all of them have. I regret that I have not heard all of the interventions. This element in the budget is the reference to a centre of productivity and employment growth. That centre is an instrument of a highly technical nature where technological change will be the focus, a forum where business and Government can bring to the fore experience at the shop floor level, as they say, bring to the attention of all the experience of the front line of the workplace in order to find some short-term answers to questions that have been of concern to some of the speakers on the opposite side. Those, of course, are the concerns of the Government as well. Beyond that, evidently answers will have to be found of a medium-term
May 6, 1983

nature and of a long-term nature, and the challenge is now before us.
Through its budget of April 19, 1983 the Government has made an offer to fund a centre if there is the will to create one, a place where labour can play a central role, together with business and with Government, in the shaping of our future, in the managing of this technological change and in the exchange and the bringing together of experiences as seen from different angles, in an attempt to search for solutions. Evidently the solutions are not easy to find and the finding of them cannot be the exclusive domain of one party or the other, of Parliament alone or the Government alone.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that better answers will come as a result of consultations and co-operation by all of the sectors in our society that are affected. Inevitably there will be things that labour knows more about, there will be things that business will understand better, and there will be another range of knowledge and experience that the Government will be able to contribute in the interest of the public at large.
The future lies in these kinds of measures. I suppose the creation of a subcommittee of Cabinet on technology must have been brought up earlier in the debate. Mr. Speaker, what more evidence is needed to demonstrate to you that there has been and there is now forward thinking on the part of this Government of the kind that this Opposition motion does not seem to be aware of or does not want to take into consideration? If these elements that I am submitting for your consideration seem valid to you, the motion before us that condemns the Government has no foundation.
What I do welcome, though, is the fact that this debate has put forward a number of interesting propositions. There have been interesting questions and points raised by the Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) who made inquiries about the Labour Code earlier this afternoon.
Some interesting questions were asked by Hon. Members concerning the management of change in general. This issue is so important and fundamental to the survival of society and to the benefit of all Canadians that it requires more than just a political, partisan approach, which is understandable within the confines of these four walls. It will require very active and intensive participation and co-operation so as to trigger the input of all interested parties. Therefore, I place a particular importance on the creation of the centre mentioned in the budget of April 19.1 see it as a vehicle to approach these issues which could make a considerable difference.
There are skeptics who say that this country is not ready for an approach by labour, business and Government. I am somewhat saturated, to say the least, with references to Japan and Japanese models. Quite frankly, those models from abroad have their own merits within the confines of those particular cultures. It is important to study them and to learn about their existence but, having done so, we have to turn around, look at ourselves and seek our own identity so that we can implement
Supply
our own ways of doing things. It cannot be the Japanese way or the European way; it has to be the Canadian way.
In this respect I remind Hon. Members that in Canada we have some interesting models which have already been developed. For example, we have an approach through the vehicle of task forces as announced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) on several occasions in recent months. There is what could be called a bilateral model in the automotive industry which has a labour leader and a recognized industrial leader working together, co-chairing a task force and producing a report, in the case of the automotive industry, I suppose in the matter of a few weeks. They deliver to Government their findings and conclusions and then leave it to Government to make a decision in the interests of that particular industrial sector and of the public at large. That model is being repeated in the forestry industry. It could be said that somehow it is a continuation of the sectoral approaches of 1978 or thereabouts when some ten or 20 sectors were developed for study as an initiative of the Liberal Government.
Parallel to the bilateral approach we have a trilateral approach which exists in at least four places in Canada, all at the federal level. I will not venture into the provincial level where I am sure there are ongoing trilateral models, particularly in the fields of apprenticeship training and counselling across the board in most Provinces. But at the federal level in Hamilton, for instance, there is the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety run by a council consisting of labour, business and the Government. In Ottawa we have the Labour Adjustment Benefit Board, which is also run by a trilateral body. In addition we have the Export Development Board which advises the Minister in charge of exports and consists of three sectoral individuals representing labour, management and business. Finally we have the Textile Advisory Board-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister but his allotted time has expired.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for these few moments to speak on this matter. Also I thank the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) for his generosity in allowing me some time in which to speak and the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) for not asking any questions. If I may be so bold, I will include the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) in my thanks.
I have listened very carefully to the debate today. I even contemplated a desire to move a motion under Standing Order 84(2) which would allow the House to continue almost indefinitely with this interesting debate, but I now think it is best that it conclude.
I was interested in the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia). He talked about many things the Government is doing, and I think it is doing some things. The report which has been declared a Cabinet document so that it cannot be

May 6, 1983
Supply
shown to us indicated the danger of 15 per cent unemployment. One of the reasons we find ourselves in our present position is perhaps because the Government of Canada has forgotten two things. In terms of the size of the deficit, which may be a drag on the economy and on our recovery, it has forgotten the biblical injunction to save in the good years against the bad. It spends, spends, spends in the good years; spends, spends, spends in the bad years; and we have that drag which may very well dampen our recovery.
Second, as Governments will take the benefit to which I think they are entitled when things go reasonably well, they have to take the responsibility when things go reasonably bad. There is no doubt we are suffering today from the fact that Governments have failed to foresee the abvent of the information society and the importance of this new technology. Only now are lights going on when we face some tremendous problems in the community. There is not a supporter of the Government opposite who could honestly rise and say that this is the appropriate time to begin these changes. As a matter of fact, the appropriate time has long since past. That is a tragedy which will be borne by many young people who are now unskilled and will be caught in the short-term period. I do not want anyone in the House to think that there are not some tremendous advantages to the technological change which is now coming about, if we are wise enough to plan for it and to take advantage of it.
Some Members have talked about the changes in the industrial revolution with the invention of the steam engine, such as the change in the agricultural community which resulted in displaced workers. Those workers went to the cities
to find new jobs. The high technology industry is not only developing for itself; it is developing technology to be used in existing industries to upgrade them, to make them more competitive and more productive, to create new jobs and new product lines to improve our place in world markets. We have to be awake and wise enough to take advantage of this. It is the challenge which faces every one of us, but this motion condemns the Government because it is starting awfully late.
I urge Hon. Members of the Government to read a little book entitled "While There is Time", by Stephen Leacock. He had the following to say about Canada in a very short passage:
-Canada is as empty as ever-almost; still abundant room, abundant opportunity, life and all that makes it sweet, waiting here for uncounted millions of people, serene sky and empty plain, and rivers murmuring in the forest-nature's temple, where we crowd and wrangle round the entrances.
That is still the picture of our country if we are prepared to take advantage of those things which are ours, and one of those things is the advent of the information and communication age.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


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, May 9, 1983