Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):

Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should recognize that the report to which I have alluded concerns specifically the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and the Pacific Coast. When dealing with fish habitat it is the duty of the Department to come up with a comprehensive policy so that all developers in Canada know what are the rules of the game. It is my policy that, every time we have a major economic development, one of the prerequisites is that public hearings be held so that all sides have the chance to express their views.

Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigra-

October 14, 1983

tion. Given the appropriate decision of his predecessor not to grant a general amnesty to illegal immigrants, and given the former and present Minister's intention to deal with these people on a case-by-case basis, however, they are going to do it anonymously-I can see that with a lawyer, given his solicitor-client privilege-is the Minister not concerned that where a Member of Parliament acts as a third party in an application and the application fails, the Member of Parliament is in the invidious position that he knows the individual, knows the law has been broken, and knows the person is here as an illegal immigrant and cannot report that fact?

Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an important and rather difficult question. The procedure which we established is the one which was recommended by the Robinson Report in dealing with the problem of illegal migrants in Canada.

As the Hon. Member correctly said, the proposal put forward by some Members of the public for general amnesty was rejected. It was believed that special arrangements should be put in place to review on a case-by-case basis those which are brought to our attention. It seems reasonable to have a process by which people can bring forward their cases without putting themselves in jeopardy of automatically being subjected to the processes of the law in case the humanitarian review of their case is not successful. If there were not such provision, very few people would be likely to come forward.

My inclination would be to accept the responsibility of the Member of Parliament in this area. It would be similar to that of the lawyer-client relationship, in other words, acting as an agent for those who want to take advantage of this procedure.

I should point out to the Hon. Member clearly that no one is given final entry anonymously. A recommendation is made on a set of facts alleged, and an indication is given by the committee that the individual meeting those facts would likely be accepted, subject to the ordinary reviews done on the basis of security and health.

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration a question on behalf of the unemployed in the City of Calgary. It is Liberal Government policies which have destroyed about 20 per cent of the jobs that existed two or three years ago. The people of Calgary would like to know why the allocation of employment-creation funds is based on a four-year average. How does the unemployment rate in Calgary, four, three or two years ago, have anything to do with the need for jobs today?

Oral Questions

Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Madam Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member is referring to the constituency allocations under the Canada Works Program. There is a common allocation base for every constituency across the country, a minimum level. The application of Canada Works funds above and beyond that is on the basis of a figure related to the labour surplus, not over four years, but over the past year. The four-year figure refers to the LEAD funds which would be allocated in that way from April on. In so far as the Canada Works allocations are concerned, which are those which would be applied in the Alberta area, it is not a four-year average which is relevant.

Mr. Hawkes:

It is an allocation formula based on information that is four years out of date. I think the current situation should be the only criterion used.

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):

Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Employment and Immigration uses an 8 per cent rate of unemployment and characterizes it as normal. Labour surplus for Employment and Immigration is calculated as that rate which is above 8 per cent. Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Minister of Employment and Immigration that 8 per cent unemployment is normal and we just have to be concerned about that unemployment rate which is in excess of 8 per cent?

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration never made any such statement. I already answered this question on this very subject in response to the Hon. Member from Hamilton.

Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):

Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It deals with the report of the Economic Council of Canada, and particularly the Council's description of the disparity between the incomes of males and females in the work place, which it describes as follows:

-the size and persistence of the gap is striking, even within distinct occupational groups, whether measured in relative or absolute terms.

Does the Minister agree with that assessment of the Economic Council and, if he does, what policies or measures does he intend to put in place to reduce the gap?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):

Obviously, Madam Speaker, this is a question which must be dealt with not only by my Department, but by several Government Departments. In light of the report of the Economic Council of Canada, I intend to raise the issue with the President of the Treasury Board and a number of other Cabinet colleagues to hammer out the Government position in that respect.

October 14, 1983

Oral Questions

Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):

Madam Speaker, that leads me directly to my supplementary question. I am trying to find out about ministerial responsibility with respect to high technology. The Economic Council has said:

The introduction of new technology, if it were accompanied by appropriate adjustments of skills, could be a vehicle for further improvements; or it could erect barriers in the form of dead-end or part-time work-

That was referring to female workers. Are the challenges and threats posed to female workers by high technology regarded as a direct responsibility of the Minister of Labour? If that is the case, then what policies and mechanisms does the Minister intend to put in place to meet the challenge and to deal with the threat to female workers in the work place?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):

Madam Speaker, I think that by asking the question, the Hon. Member realizes that several Ministers share responsibilities in that field. In the case of Government female workers, the President of the Treasury Board is reponsible as Minister who looks after public servants as a whole. In the case of female workers in the private sector, depending on prevailing conditions in that sector, and if they are covered by the Canada Labour Code, they may come under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

As you know, the Government has launched a dynamic technological program under the direction of the Minister of State for Economic Development. That is why I said in the first part of my answer to the Hon. Member that several Ministers share responsibilities in that field and that the report of the Economic Council of Canada will be examined by a Cabinet committee.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):

Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.

The Minister knows full well that his decision to end the excellent education program offered by Laval University at the Laval Institution has been condemned by all Canadian and Quebec associations concerned with criminal justice. How can the Minister justify that ill-advised decision which program Director Mario Ferland has described as being unwitting, irresponsible and disastrous for the development of education in prisons?

Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):

Madam Speaker, I have stated in this House that I strongly support postsecondary

training in our institutions. The problem is that Director Ferland's program-BAGIL-which was set up at Laval and offered to the 3,500 federal inmates in the Province of Quebec has not been very successful during those three years. Indeed, of late there were 12 students out of 3,500 inmates in the Province. I would prefer a program such as the one we now have in British Columbia where hundreds of students are registered. I think that we can have a program which would gain wider support among the inmates and which would cost a lot less, considering that we are now paying over $8,000 a year for each student in the program which I have just refused to extend.