Mr. Dawson:

Yes, and we will be here for a few years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member should address the Chair.

Mr. Dawson:

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 1 was answering the remarks made by our hon. friends opposite.

Distribution of jobs placed 51 per cent in manufacturing, 20 per cent in retailing and wholesaling, 12 per cent in service industries. Forty-three per cent of employees worked in machinery and fabricating occupations, 15 per cent in clerical, and 7 per cent in sales.

Employers in the Atlantic regions and the Gaspe region of Quebec can earn a maximum of $4,160 in tax credits for each employee hired under the program; in most other urban areas in other regions, the maximum tax credit earned for each employee is $3,120, while in the remainder of the country the maximum is $3,640.

The program involves very little paperwork. There are only two one-page forms to be filled in by the employer, with a third that is optional.

Young Canadians 25 years of age and under made up 55 per cent of those employed, equally split between male and female. Over all, a full 34 per cent of those employed were females. That is another responsibility the hon. minister has and will be dealing with in the next few weeks, Mr. Speaker.

Coming back to the paperwork, we have heard so often from hon. members opposite that we are burdening small enterprise with paper work. This is a tax credit program and it is very easy for the companies to apply for it. We have not received any complaints from private enterprise or stnall companies concerning this program because it is very easy for them to apply, and very easy for them to profit from it. Some hon. members have already spoken on this aspect, Mr. Speaker.

April 24, 1980

A sample based on 5,000 employed under the program reveals that 52 per cent were living on unemployment insurance benefits prior to finding employment through the program; another 5 per cent were living on welfare, and others were being supported by family members, living on savings or pensions. I think that is a good performance, Mr. Speaker. All had been unemployed for a minimum of two weeks, but the average length of time they had been unemployed and looking for work was 15 weeks. And I think that has been progressive, Mr. Speaker.

Employment and unemployment patterns vary widely across this country, and the employment tax credit program, although it has been successful, cannot meet all the varying employment needs in this diverse country.

The extension of the Employment Tax Credit Act is an interim measure, which will shortly be followed by a range of new employment programs.

The kind of targeting which respects the diversity of this country and is sensitive to the differing needs and opportunities across this country, is a fundamental part of the employment development measures that this government is developing and which will be presented to this House in the near future.

Having this information now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. members will stop filibustering the bill and that we may have maximum co-operation from them so that the small enterprise about which they are always crying will get back to this program and be satisfied with it.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about the bill before us, C-19. I was chatting with my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) just before I got up to speak. He brought to my attention a quote from John Foster Dulles that I thought might well be appropriate for the context of this debate. It goes as follows: "The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it's the same problem you had last year". I have to think that if you are going to measure success by that criterion, then this government certainly is successful. If anything, it is very successful given that the problem it is now dealing with is even worse than the problem it had when the legislation was first introduced by its predecessor.

Let me talk for a moment in a little different vein from my colleagues who tended to want to speak about the statistical problems and the values of this piece of legislation statistically. I want to talk about what unemployment really is. It is not a statistic that should be manipulated by politicians for their own particular needs. It is not 7, 8 or 9 per cent of anything. For the majority of people who face it, it is the single most frightening, single most soul-destroying experience.

The very result of unemployment breaks up families, and contributes to excessive alcohol and drug use. It is a symptom that is reflected frequently in child abuse and spouse abuse.

Employment Tax Credit Act

Unemployment is a major contributor to crime. If you were to stop and think about it for a moment, you would agree that unemployment is the single major problem with which we have to cope. If we could deal with the background to unemployment, we would to a great extent have dealt with the social and economic problems that confront the nation at the moment.

We are in a country that is facing a terrible crisis. We are faced with a piece of legislation which, under any other circumstances, would be unsupportable.

Mr. Fraser:

What circumstances would those be?

Mr. Deans:

In any other circumstances this kind of legislation would be totally unsupportable. I will come to that in a moment. When you look around you and you look at the crisis and the problems that confront us, and you look at this piece of legislation intended to deal even in part with the problems of unemployment, the tendency is to smile and walk away from it.

Here we are with a resource sector under siege from offshore, having great difficulty coping with the challenges of today, given the facts of the companies that operate here and abuse and take our resources, and have done so for many years. They are now using the money that they got from the sale of those resources to develop competitive resources in other parts of the world. This country has its energy prices dictated to it by OPEC nations. It has its interest rate policies set in Washington and New York. This country has a manufacturing sector that is being undermined by foreign ownership. The elderly of this country are in despair, and the young are beset with panic.

I have three children and they say to me, "Hey, Dad, what do you think I should be? What should I study? What are the opportunities? What sorts of advice can you give me with regard to where my future might lie in terms of finding a job?" I ask hon. members to think about that for a moment. What kind of advice do you give young people today when they ask you what they should study, where are the areas of greatest opportunity, and what chance is there for them? I certainly find it difficult to give them the kind of advice that I got from my father and I am sure he got from his.

Go to Canada?

Mr. Deans:

I thank you very much-a very interesting interjection and typical of the Conservative party. Those who have jobs are afraid to spend because their jobs are in jeopardy. They are not at all sure of the future. Those who have no jobs cannot spend. The country's economy is on the decline and we get a piece of legislation which in essence, when looked at most carefully, enshrines the working poor as an institution in Canada.

You have to look at what is happening in this country. Perhaps the government would have been better to come forward now with an over-all program that speaks about what is really going to happen and shows that we are solving the problems we are facing. I am sure you are aware of this, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES

April 24, 1980

Employment Tax Credit Act

Speaker, having been involved for many years, but it is so simple and elementary that one is almost afraid to say it, and yet it is true. As consumer purchasing declines, manufacturing slows down. As manufacturing slows down, people get laid off. As people get laid off, consumer purchasing declines. As mortgage interest rates rise, people have less money to spend to purchase durable and non-durable goods. The cycle begins all over again. Consumer purchasing declines. Manufacturing slows down. More and more people get laid off.

It feeds on itself. It has a snowballing effect. It cannot be resolved with this employment tax credit. It cannot even begin to be resolved with this unemployment tax credit, because unemployment feeds on unemployment and, as more become unemployed, more become unemployed.

This program is aimed primarily at small businesses. However, if you look honestly at small business, the declining economy does not allow for small business to expand. As people cannot purchase, the small businessman does not need to hire anyone else. Therefore a program like this does not even being to address the major problem that confronts people looking for work. Small business relies to a great extent on a buoyant economy. Unless we create a buoyant economy we will not be able to solve the problems of unemployment or the problems that flow from unemployment.

Take a look at small business. I listened to members who have spoken and who made reference to small businesses and the difficulties that confront them. As they stand in their store or factory awaiting the orders to come in for the sale of the product that they either wholesale, retail, or manufacture, they build up inventories. Those inventories are dollars. They go to the bank.

I was in the bank yesterday. A friend of mine who owns a small business said to me, "When are they going to do something in Ottawa? Do they not understand that I cannot afford to carry this inventory any longer, that the cost of carrying the inventory is a cost that I cannot recover? I cannot recover it because I am in competition with big business and they are able to sell finance to a greater extent. 1 must therefore go into the bank and borrow. I must add the 20 per cent on to the cost of my inventory when I put it on sale in the store. The consumers, those who are still working and still have some money to spend, look at my price and they look at the price of the larger enterprise, the chain store operation or others, and they see they can get the same product at a much cheaper price elsewhere."

This does not help my friend in business. It does not help him a bit. He cannot hire anyone anyway because he does not have the volume, yet he still has to carry the inventory. He still has to borrow. If one were to look at how you begin the process of resolving the problems of Canada, you surely do not begin by bringing in this, but by bringing in some action that will stabilize interest rates.

I was particularly intrigued by the comments of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)

because they are, at least in one instance, right on. These are not 50,000 jobs for a year each. These jobs might last for a few weeks. That's it. Then they are back on the breadline again, or in the unemployment insurance commission office, or looking out of their windows wondering just where they are going next.

How many hon. members have been unemployed? How many know what it is to look at your kids and realize that you don't have an income, to realize that you cannot provide the things the other families on the street are providing for their kids? How many know what it is like to sit down with your family when Christmas comes and you can't do anything because you have not been able to find a job, or what it is like to realize that your mortgage is due very soon and not only are the interest rates rising, not only will you be faced with exorbitant increases over what you were paying previously, but to know full well that you will not be able to find a job and, by not being able to find a job, no matter what happens you are going to lose your home, the home you both worked for years to save the down payment for, the home you have put most of your dreams into, and maybe thought you would raise your family in?

Go talk to the people outside and ask them. This measure does nothing even to begin to address that devastating problem. We talk about unemployment as if, somehow or other, here in the House of Commons it really doesn't affect people. I shall not go into details about unemployment in other parts of the country because I intend to do that another time, but in the province of Ontario alone unemployment has now become the order of the day. There are very few, if any, communities where industries are not laying off workers. There are very few families which are not touched by it in one way or another. Yet we get a bill, Bill C-19, which will find two or three temporary jobs at minimum wage. We get a bill which does not begin to address itself to the major problem. That is the response of the government.

Do hon. members realize, for example, that in Talbotville on January 19, 3,100 people were laid off in the auto industry? In Oakville on the same date 3,400 people were laid off in the auto industry. In St. Catharines 2,400 were laid off by General Motors on January 22. In Brampton, during February, Gabriel laid off 20 people engaged in parts manufacturing.

In Hamilton, Firestone laid off 75 workers on February 8, and another lay-off is starting tomorrow. In Stratford the Sealed Power Corporation laid off 180 people engaged in parts production. A colleague in the Conservative party spoke of the situation in Brampton earlier tonight and expressed concern. Well, in Brampton 470 people were laid off on February 16. In Oshawa in the GM plant on March 1, 2,000 people were laid off. In Ajax, 18 people were laid off on March 6 and another 92 in April. This was at Chrysler. Leigh Instruments, another auto-related industry in Waterloo, laid off 130 people.

In Whitby, the Firestone Tire Company closes with 650 people laid off and we are still debating whether we should go ahead with the Michelin project! In St. Catharines, General Motors, 3,100 laid off; also in St. Catharines, 70 people laid off on March 29 by Hayes-Dana, the chassis manufacturing

April 24, 1980

firm. In Oakville on April 16, 1,400 people were laid off; in Windsor on the same date, 800 Ford employees laid off. In Scarborough on April 17-General Motors-131 more people laid off. In Ottawa-I mentioned this the other night-240 people were laid off by Beach Foundry, an auto parts manufacturer. Another 28 people were laid off by Kelsey-Hayes in St. Catharines and another 100 at Otter Lake, as I mentioned. At Stratford-Schwitzer-61 people laid off. And today, Massey Ferguson in Brantford announced that 85 were to be laid off with more lay-offs to come. Then, of course, we must consider the situation in Detroit, our neighbour, one which closely affects the Windsor area. General Motors announced today that 13,000 people are to be laid off.

That is unemployment, Mr. Speaker. And the effects of that unemployment are devastation for the workers and their families. The effects of such unemployment cannot be met by this ridiculous piece of inadequate legislation.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Deans:

We would like to be charitable and say we understand it is only intended as a stop-gap measure. The problem is, I cannot for the life of me see where the permanent measures are coming from. When can I expect to hear from the government a statement about its policy with regard to employment? When can I expect to hear from the government its policies with regard to the restructuring of the manufacturing sector? When can we expect to hear from the government what its policies are with regard to the auto insurance industry and related industries?

If 1 thought for a moment the bill was intended to Fill a very narrow gap, I would say: very well, let us pass it, let us get on to the real meat of the thing. But you know, and I know, Mr. Speaker-I can tell from the way you are looking at me-we both know there is no legislation forthcoming; I can see it in your eyes. It is just awful. Here we are, standing in the House of Commons; you would think it was a new thing, that we had never heard of it before, that it has just blossomed.

When I was in Hamilton yesterday and people were telling me about their problems-here we have Firestone laying people off and, no doubt, the steel industry will be affected by the auto cutbacks and colleagues and friends of mine laid off in Oakville Ford and all the related industries in the area looking very seriously at cutbacks-they said, "What are you going to do tomorrow when you get back?" I said, "I am going to say a word or two about the employment tax credit bill."

"Hey!" they said, "Is that going to be any good?" Really! What could I say? 1 was embarrassed. And no wonder. This government wins on the strength of promises that ministers are going to deal with the economy, that they are going to wrestle inflation to the ground again. They are really going to put their best foot forward-

Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):

If they can get it out of their mouth.

Employment Tax Credit Act

Mr. Deans:

After they get it out of their mouth. Yes, the difficulty here is plain to see. For some of us it is plain, ordinary frustration. We should not be dealing here with this bill tonight. We should be dealing with the meat of the problem. We should be talking about the difficulties which are confronting people across this nation. We should be looking at primary legislation to deal with these things.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Deans:

I want to suggest two or three small steps- maybe the government could consider them after they get this innocuous, ridiculous, outrageous piece of legislation through. Maybe they could take a look at reducing interest rates as recommended not only by us but by Walter Gordon, among others, who has said that if ever there was a time to move to the reduction of interest rates in the interest of the national economy, this was the time.

Not only should there be a lower interest rate policy, but we should also stabilize rates for a period in order that people could feel reasonably secure about their investments, reasonably secure about their futures, and reasonably secure about their ability to repay what they borrow. That would be the first policy 1 would like to see followed. I think then perhaps we could sit down and look at the auto industry, because it is upon the auto industry that much of Ontario turns, and we have to recognize that unless we take advantage of the situation which is now before us, and unless we are prepared to develop a parts manufacturing sector in Ontario and in the rest of Canada, then we will be forever at the mercy of the United States auto industry. That is plain to anyone.

I am sure there is not a member in this House who would not agree that there is not going to be a return to the good old days when everybody traded in his car every second year, and the auto industry flourished on the basis of that. People are going to keep their cars longer, buy new tires, and maybe even put in new motors. They are going to put in new parts, and unless we are manufacturing those tires, those motors and those parts, then we are going to be left out. Maybe the government could come into the House and spare just a couple of minutes more than the question period to chat about how we together could solve that very vexing and difficult problem.

Perhaps with our interest rate policy we could encourage the building industry to start again building homes for people of average means. The spin-off in the home building industry is phenomenal; 3.6 jobs are created in related industries to every job created building a house. Can hon. members imagine the number of jobs we could create in Canada in related industries if we could get on with the job of building homes for people at prices they could afford, and with mortgages they could afford to pay?

Maybe we could even take some strides to alter dramatically the resource exploitation policies of the past. Perhaps we could insist on further processing in Canada-a novel thought! That probably has never been considered. Maybe we could even

April 24, 1980

Employment Tax Credit Act

consider that since the resources are ours it would be helpful for two or three people if we were to take the resources and do something with them here, instead of sending them out of the country. Can hon. members imagine the spin-off? Can they imagine the benefit?

Then, of course, maybe we could consider our energy policy. Maybe we could take a look at energy as a resource, a catalyst or a tool for the development of this country. Maybe we could sit down and find a way to use it best to stabilize the economy, to build secondary manufacturing, and to develop the kinds of job opportunities which would make this kind of legislation, as I said before, unnecessary.

Then, of course, if someone brought in a piece of rubbish like this, we would know that it was really only intended to deal with such a small and isolated sector of society that we could make it worth while. We could fund it properly. We would not be putting people into low paying and menial jobs but, rather, into jobs that would satisfy them and give them a chance to earn a decent living. That is when this kind of legislation would be useful. It is useless today.

If the government would address itself to these kinds of things, then maybe the people of Canada would feel a little more secure and a little happier about the fact that we are all sitting here-we are not all sitting here, but those of us who are are sitting here. Maybe the minister would even take it upon himself to drop by and listen. He might enjoy it. If he did not enjoy it, he might learn. If he did not learn, he might at least appear to be interested. This might be a worth-while thing to consider.

In any event, the problems of this country are not going to be solved easily, and they are not going to be solved at all unless the process is begun here. This is where it has to start, and if it does not start here it will not start at all.

We put our faith in General Motors, thank you very much. We thought Chrysler, being the big, seventh largest corporation, was wonderful. We wondered how Ford could go wrong. Henry told us it was here to stay. Let us face it, the corporations have shown that they are not able to do this alone, and neither should they be expected to. This is the time for co-operative effort, and there are places in the world where co-operative effort is the order of the day and where industry and government work together.

There are places in the world where labour is consulted, where there is a sense of national purpose, where people really believe that their country means something, and where people are prepared to put out a little more because they know their contribution is both recognized and appreciated. We would not be dealing with this legislation if we could instil that kind of sense in this government.

Hear, hear!

Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):

Mr. Speaker, just prior to the speech by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) there was an intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Dawson), the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. I want to commend him for his speech. I thought it was lucid, clear, and well thought out. It showed a great amount of insight, especially in view of the fact that it was the speech of the former minister of employment and immigration. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he continue on that path, and I look forward to more speeches if they are of that same quality.

Mr. Dawson:

I wouldn't want to follow his career.

Mr. Epp:

If the hon. member's speeches continue to be of that same quality, I would appreciate them.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned in his remarks that this House and the people of Canada would receive a comprehensive employment strategy which, I take it, will be a strategy with which this government will come forward in a very clear and precise way, and that we will be told how the government will address the question of Canada's unemployment.

I take it we will be told specifically how the government will address the problem of chronic unemployment among specific groups such as women, natives, and the handicapped, and I ask that the minister pay careful attention to the commitments his parliamentary secretary has made. I suggest to the minister that a comprehensive report and comprehensive legislation be brought forward within the next month. We will be pressing him for that strategy, in view of the fact that that commitment has been made tonight.

1 found it rather interesting that the parliamentary secretary should use the argument that we have been filibustering this bill.

Mr. Friesen:

First day.